Summary

This enactment enacts the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which prohibits oil tankers that are carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil as cargo from stopping, or unloading crude oil or persistent oil, at ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border. The Act prohibits loading if it would result in the oil tanker carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of those oils as cargo.

The Act also prohibits vessels and persons from transporting crude oil or persistent oil between oil tankers and those ports or marine installations for the purpose of aiding the oil tanker to circumvent the prohibitions on oil tankers.

Finally, the Act establishes an administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of five million dollars.

Elsewhere

Votes

May 8, 2018Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast

May 1, 2018Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast

May 1, 2018Failed Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast (report stage amendment)

Oct. 4, 2017Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast

Oct. 4, 2017Passed Time allocation for Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast

I would like to thank my colleagues across the aisle for accommodating me this morning. Sometimes I think we should issue a press release whenever goodwill shows up between parties, because all Canadians see in this chamber is something other than that, which is unfortunate, because we do work together many times to get things done.

I am rising today to talk about Bill C-48 and the importance of making sure that we get this right. I am also going to talk about the concerns that we in Saskatchewan have about how this is being handled.

I sit on the trade committee. When the Liberals came into power, they wanted to review the TPP. They said that proper consultations had not happened. They said that the consultations had to be redone before the agreement was signed by the Liberal government.

The trade committee went across Canada. It redid all the work that the previous government had done and then some. Committee members made sure they talked to first nations and to business communities. They talked to people right across Canada. A lot of people said it was the third or fourth time they had talked about the TPP and it was being done again. The Liberals were telling us that we had to consult, that we had to do our homework, that we had to make sure everybody was aware of it, and that we had to be aware of all circumstances before going forward with that trade deal.

I look at this bill and I say the same thing. When we look at the impact this legislation would have on western Canada and Canada as a whole, we know we need to talk to a lot of people before this can be done.

I am from Saskatchewan. Some may ask why people in Saskatchewan would care about a tanker ban. A lot of people in Saskatchewan work in the oil and gas sector and their jobs will be impacted by this ban.

Let us not fool ourselves. This is not a tanker ban. This is to stop development in the resource sector and to stop shipping products to the west coast. It is nothing more than that. It is what the Liberals really planned to do from day one, and this bill is how they are going to achieve it. That is very disappointing.

If the Liberals wanted to make this major change, where were the committee meetings? When did the committee travel out there and talk about this with the various people who would be impacted? When did the Liberals talk to the premiers? When did they talk to the Premier of Saskatchewan and tell him this is what the government had planned? They did not do that.

This is the Prime Minister personally saying that he is going to ban tanker traffic because he thinks it is bad. Where is the science? What is his logic for doing this? Is there a problem with tankers? Are tankers unsafe? Is there a problem with the currents and other things in that area? The science that we have says no.

If tankers were unsafe, why would we allow them down the St. Lawrence River? Why would we allow them off the coast of Atlantic Canada? As we speak, tankers around the world are shipping oil out of places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They do this every day and we hear nothing about it.

What is it about this coastline that is so unique and special that Atlantic Canada does not get the same special consideration? Why is Atlantic Canada or the St. Lawrence not treated the same way? If we are concerned about the west coast, why are we not concerned about the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Canada? It does not make sense.

Some from western Canada may ask why the Prime Minister is doing this. It comes back to what he said before. He does not want the resource sector to be developed. He wants to shut it down. This bill is one of the corner pieces of the puzzle that would actually do that. What does that mean for the people of Saskatchewan, the people of Alberta, and the people of northern British Columbia? It means lost economic opportunity and lost jobs. What is left for the families that are employed in this sector, who are in good, well-paying jobs, who are in a good situation and are able to give their kids a good quality of life?

People in western Canada right now are taking part in rallies. I was on Facebook last night and watched a rally in Fort Nelson. Families are saying, “Enough is enough.” They have had enough. They want their MPs to represent them. They want their MPs to tell them that they care. They want their MPs to understand that the resource sector is not bad. They want us to understand that people need fuel in their cars and they would love to provide it. They want us to understand that they provide it in the most environmentally friendly fashion in the world.

What is the deal? Where is the problem? It comes back to one thing. The Prime Minister does not like the resource sector.

The Prime Minister went to Paris. He wanted to be the big guy in town, so he made commitments. He came back to Canada and he took the Conservative targets. He brings in things like a carbon tax, which he is going to shove down the throats of Canadians. People in Saskatchewan are looking at that carbon tax and they know it is really going to hurt them because they cannot pass those costs on.

A farmer cannot pass a carbon tax on. He cannot take the cost of fuel for his tractors, his combines, and his machinery and put it in the price of a commodity that is traded on the world market. However, he is still forced to compete against Americans who do not have a carbon tax. The Australians removed their carbon tax. Other countries are not going down this road.

What is even sadder about carbon is Saskatchewan has a really good game plan that does not involve a carbon tax, which would actually meet our commitments, and the Liberals will not agree to that. Why is that? What is the issue there? If their goal is to reduce carbon and there is a game plan that will not impact the economy and will actually achieve that goal, why not take it? It goes back to one thing: lack of respect.

The Liberals want to shut down the resource sector. We are hearing stories now that they want to shut down the coal sector. In Saskatchewan, we have carbon capture off our coal power plants. With this technology, those power plants have five times less emissions than natural gas. However, the Liberals say, “Let us get rid of coal.” What does that mean? Is that really crazy? I think so.

If there is technology to make coal clean and to reduce its carbon footprint, why would we not embrace the new technology and still use this fuel source? No, we are going to get rid of it. We are to ignore the science because, heaven forbid, cabinet knows best. That is what is happening. All the regulations and science are being thrown out the window, and it goes back to cabinet, and its members are going to say “Do I like this guy or not?”, or “I have a toothache so I'm going to vote no.” What about the science? Science needs to trump that.

In Bill C-48, where is the science to say it requires this type of ban? It is not there. There is no science.

There have been no consultations. It is something that is going to drastically change the lives of families across western Canada, if not all of Canada, yet the Liberals just march ahead. They put the earplugs in and just do what they do. Then they wonder why people are protesting in western Canada. They wonder why families are concerned and upset. They cannot understand why they do not love them. There needs to be respect. The Liberals need to talk to them. The Liberals need to understand why this is important to people. They need to show common sense, because there is no common sense in bringing oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela when we have oil right here in Canada. It is actually clean oil. It is more environmentally friendly than any oil we would receive from other parts of the planet.

This bill is a bad piece of legislation. It should be thrown away. If the Liberals want to talk about protecting the environment in that region, or maintaining areas in that region in their natural state, let us have that discussion. I have no problem with that. There might be areas where we see that through. However, to say there will be no more tankers in the whole region is absolutely crazy. It is ludicrous.

People in western Canada just cannot understand the government. It has so many things at its fingertips to make this economy run really well and still meet all its environmental commitments and the government keeps chopping off the hand that feeds it. It is so sad.

I will not be voting in favour of the bill. It is a bad piece of legislation. It sets a bad precedent. It does not meet the commitment Liberals made to voters about consulting before making legislation. It does not meet the commitment about working with opposition parties and other groups at committee to have good pieces of legislation. It does not meet any of those criteria. However, the Liberals will still ram it through. It is unfortunate they are going to do that because they are making a huge mistake.

Mr. Speaker, first, the Enbridge line through northern B.C. would have gone through territory that had not seen pipelines. It is a highly ecologically sensitive area. That was the first concern. It was a concern of our party. It was a concern of the Supreme Court of Canada when it overturned the process the previous government had used to try to get that pipeline built.

There are alternatives. I wonder if the member would like to comment on the advent of processes to render bitumen into, basically, hockey pucks that could be shipped in bulk, so we we would not be dealing with what they call a persistent oil. These are oils that will not evaporate if they hit the water. These hockey pucks float, and they can be easily recovered. Has the member examined the option of refining the product more on the Canadian side, in Alberta, before it gets to the west coast? Then if it becomes a non-persistent oil, if it is something that would evaporate if it hits the water, as I understand it, that would be allowed under this tanker moratorium.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's openness in saying we should look at technology to see if we can do this better and more safely. That is a wise approach. However, the Liberals are not doing that here. They are not doing that with coal, for example. They are just getting rid of it. They are saying that there is no technology, so get rid of it and do not allow anyone to use it. That is wrong. If there are new technologies that should be embraced, let us embrace them. If there are things that will make it safer, let us embrace them too. However, to impose a moratorium right across the west coast and say no is wrong. That is what this bill is doing.

They have not talked about the consultations. They have not talked about the impact it is going to have on western Canada or Canada as a whole. We are talking about a new technology that has come into play. Let us look at that new technology. I do not think the government is willing to accept new technologies, because if it did, it would mean it would allow the oil and gas sector to grow a bit, and that would be a problem for it. We in western Canada cannot understand why that is a problem.

I would encourage the government to look at new technologies. I would encourage it to find new ways of doing things. If there is a problem, it should address the problem, but it should not take a sledgehammer to it and say it got rid of the problem by just making sure that it is impossible to do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Prince Albert for his heartfelt speech. It is clear that he is an honest man who is doing a good job of representing his riding by raising concerns about what he sees as a holdup.

Everyone looked up when the member opposite asked his question about alternative ways of distributing the resource in a more solid, more liquid, or more refined form. That is exactly what a debate like today's is meant to achieve. We can all learn something new. If any other members have similar knowledge, I hope they will share it with us, because the debate on this subject is usually like the blind leading the blind.

My colleague mentioned earlier that our oil is the most environmentally friendly oil in the world. Funnily enough, we are constantly being told the opposite. I do not know how many times I have read that using steam to extract oil from sand produces wastewater. I have also read that this steam is generated using natural gas and that the natural gas emissions create a massive carbon footprint.

If there are any alternatives, we should talk about them. I quite agree with him. I am thinking specifically of the work of Paul Painter, who used ionic liquids to separate sand from oil. Let us talk about alternatives before we talk about distribution and increasing extraction.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the Liberals need to have proper consultations. That is why they need to say to the public that this is what they are thinking and this is the problem. They would be surprised by what would come up as solutions. There are solutions to the problems. If they do not want to hear the solutions, they do stuff like this. They shove it down people's throats and get it done so they do not have a chance to present a solution. That is what they are doing in this case.

I will remind the House that there are still going to be tankers going up and down the west coast. However, they will not be Canadian tankers, and they will not be hauling Canadian oil.

We can look at all these new processes and new technologies and embrace them. I encourage us to embrace them. However, the government will not embrace them. It does everything but that. Instead, we see things like Bill C-48, which takes a sledgehammer to it and bans it outright. It takes all the development and throws it away, when there are probably opportunities here to make it better so that it works for everyone involved. That is so disappointing.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act. The name of the bill is actually quite curious, because when we look at the facts, we see that this piece of legislation has very little to do with banning oil tankers from the B.C. north coast and everything to do with continuing the government's hurtful campaign against pipeline and oil development throughout this country, and in particular in western Canada. Little is surprising in this regard. The Liberals arbitrarily shelved the northern gateway pipeline in 2016, forced the cancellation of the energy east pipeline in 2017, and continued to do as little as possible to support the development of the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, which has been put on life support now, certainly in this month of May.

First, let us examine what the Liberals are saying this bill would do. Time and time again, we have heard in this chamber that Bill C-48 is about environmental protection, that by imposing this moratorium, the northern coast will be better protected, specifically against oil spills. They argue that a moratorium is the only way to safeguard against the problem and that this legislation is therefore the way forward. There are numerous and significant flaws with this jurisdiction, which mark it as both hollow and ill-advised.

First, there is an issue of consistency. Why are the Liberals targeting the B.C. north coast for a ban on oil tankers while they apparently ignore the presence of oil tankers along many other of our coasts in this country? Why are they making the arbitrary decision to limit the transport opportunities for oil along the north coast and not the south? This kind of moratorium does not exist along the St. Lawrence Seaway or in the Great Lakes, and it does not exist along the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick. It does not exist around Vancouver. The fact that Bill C-48 quite arbitrarily applies only to the B.C. north coast sheds serious doubt on the Liberal claim that the intention of this bill is environmental protection.

Second, this environmental jurisdiction fails to consider that a voluntary exclusion zone of 100 kilometres for oil tankers travelling from Alaska to Washington State has been in place since 1985. These preventive measures have already been taken, prior to any sort of moratorium being put in place by the government. Additionally, oil tankers operating at this distance from the coastline would continue to be unaffected by this legislation. Once again, we struggle to find any support for the arguments being put forward by the Liberals in favour of this bill.

Third, the Liberal argument that the oil tanker moratorium is the only way to protect the environment completely ignores the current and extensive regulatory framework that exists for oil tankers today travelling within our waters. Canada's oil tanker safety procedures and processes still remain one of the best in the world.

We recall 2014. The former Conservative government introduced and implemented many innovative measures to ensure that oil tankers operated under strict regulations and environmental protections. These measures included modernizing Canada's navigation system, enhancing area response planning, building increased marine safety capacity in first nation communities, and ensuring that polluters pay for any spills and damages since 2010.

Every large crude-oil tanker that operates in Canadian waters must be equipped now with a double hull, so any tanker in our waters is covered by two full layers of water-tight surfaces to ensure safety and environmental protection. Oil tankers are consistently monitored by our national aerial surveillance program, and our data-sharing and communication technologies rigorously guide oil tanker traffic across this country to reduce the risk of collisions.

Do these kinds of regulations and protections exist for tankers exporting oil from, let us say, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia? There is no way. Given the strong and extensive regulations that exist for oil tankers travelling through Canadian waters, it is very clear that any jurisdiction for a moratorium on oil tankers for environmental reasons is completely unfounded.

What, then, is this bill all about? The answer, of course, is that it is about the Liberals' ideological objective to restrict Canadian pipeline and energy development as much as possible. The bill can most accurately be described as a moratorium on any and all pipeline development along the coastline of northern B.C., and as a result, this legislation would kill any economic opportunities communities in this region would otherwise have due to the increased energy investment in that area. We are already seeing that. This ban would seriously hurt many, and I say many, first nation groups that have stood to gain from a pipeline in their area.

The Eagle Spirit pipeline is a $16-billion project that would stretch from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Grassy Point, along the northern coast of B.C., which would be forced to reroute to Hyder, Alaska, and its end point. If this pipeline ban is imposed, the Eagle Spirit pipeline project, directed by more than 30 first nations across northern B.C. and Alberta, and their communities stand to lose a major economic opportunity due to the Liberal government's ideological and political posturing.

Bill C-48 has been brought forward without any true or meaningful consultation with first nation communities, which would be severely impacted by the implementation of a pipeline ban in northern British Columbia.

I will quote Calvin Helin, the chairman of Eagle Spirit and a member of the Lax Kw'alaams first nation, who said, “First Nations are completely opposed to government policy being made by foreigners when it impacts their ability to help out their own people [on reserve]. The energy industry is critical to Canada’s economy”, which no doubt it is, “and by some reports we are losing [an unbelievable] $50 million a day”.

We are losing $50 million a day. That could be many schools and hospitals that we could build in Canada every single day.

It is simply unacceptable that the government refuses to consult with these groups to allow them to develop energy infrastructure, which would create significant economic opportunities in these communities. However, this behaviour coming from the Liberals is also unfortunately unsurprising, considering that it is the Liberal government that has overseen the largest decline in Canadian energy investment in the past 70 years. We have talked a lot in the House about $80 billion-plus taken out of the economy, along with jobs in the energy sector. Well over 110,000 workers are unemployed in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

A moratorium on pipelines in northern B.C. is just another example of the government's blatant hostility toward our energy sector and the jobs and economic opportunities it would supply to communities across this country. The government has used the justification of environmental protection as a smokescreen for its anti-Canadian energy policies. When this argument is held up against the facts, we see it for what it is: a desperate attempt to mask the Liberals' ideological agenda. There are no real winners as a result of the northern B.C. pipeline moratorium, except American consumers, who receive discounted prices on our Canadian oil.

Adam VaughanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, listening to some of the members, particularly from the Prairies, talk about our great coastlines and waterways and then ask what the difference is between the St. Lawrence Seaway and the coast of northern B.C. is a little like saying I have a backyard garden and I know about agriculture. There is a very big difference between the St. Lawrence Seaway and the northern coast of B.C. For example, the St. Lawrence Seaway is man-made. That is one of the critical differences.

Does the member and the party opposite really think that the St. Lawrence Seaway should be governed with exactly the same rules as the most sensitive marine environments in our country, regardless of where they are, regardless of whether there is access, regardless of whether there is even a city or a real port on the site? Is that really what the Conservatives say, that all coastlines are equal and should be treated as such?

Mr. Speaker, it is a direct attack on the northern coastline of British Columbia. We have talked about it in our speech here. There are no regulations to bring in Venezuelan oil or Saudi Arabian oil. The Liberals seem to think that it is very good to bring it into New Brunswick. We do not even talk about southern B.C. The bill talks about northern B.C.

I just talked about the opportunities of first nations that want to join the economy in this country, and they want to shut it down. We have heard from many groups in northern B.C. that want an opportunity of employment, an opportunity of prosperity, only to be shut down by this bill and the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, the revisionist history here is breathtaking. The northern gateway pipeline was defeated by first nations on the basis that the Harper Conservative government failed to consult them. Therefore, this is challenging language.

Given what we are now hearing from that quarter of the House about the Conservative Party's commitment to science and evidence, how does the member view the previous Conservative government's sabotage of the Environmental Assessment Act and the removal of protections under the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Where was the science that told that government it was a good idea to remove habitat protection from the Fisheries Act?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did a lot in nine and a half years in government, and the Liberals have been undoing it in the last two and a half years.

I can stand here and talk about Eagle Spirit. All it wants is the opportunities in northern B.C., and they are being shut down here today. If and when the bill passes, this will be disastrous for northern communities. It is the same with Kinder Morgan. We have more first nations in B.C. that approve the pipeline than those that do not, and yet we cannot get it done.

I would point out to the member that, in 1972, there were extensive consultations when the government of the day, under former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, enacted a moratorium against oil tanker traffic in the passage that includes Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance. That area has the fourth most hazardous body of water on the planet, and the transit is in interior waters with an immediate threat to Haida Gwaii and the B.C. coast. It is incomparable to any other body of water on any Canadian coastline. The moratorium was respected by Progressive Conservative federal governments and Social Credit provincial governments. It did not matter what government was in power, provincially or federally, until Stephen Harper, with zero consultations, ignored the moratorium and took it away.

I challenge the member to say why a government should not be allowed to fulfill an election promise and legislate a moratorium that we had for four decades.

Mr. Speaker, we are losing $50 million a day, and 110,000 jobs have been eliminated in my province and in Alberta because of the oil sands. It is because of the Liberals' attack on oil in Saskatchewan and Alberta. This is just another example. The Liberals are not listening to Canadians, and they will dearly pay for it next year.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, the north coast partial oil tanker ban. That we have this in place is a credit to decades of work by north coast people. I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. His version of this bill in the previous Parliament toured the entire country, and thousands of people came out under the “Defend Our Coast” banner. It was very powerful. It gave the Liberal government the mandate to implement this, so we are glad to see the legislation.

We will be voting in favour of the bill. Our New Democratic colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam tried quite hard to strengthen it. There is more ministerial discretion than we would like to see. Some of our colleagues have been quoted saying that one could drive an oil tanker through this moratorium. Nevertheless, we are going to vote in favour and we are glad to see some version of it moving forward.

As a member representing the south coast of British Columbia, the Salish Sea and Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I can say that we have very complicated shorelines, very fast-moving currents, very sensitive ecology, and 450 islands between the area I represent on Vancouver Island and the mainland of British Columbia and the U.S. border, with extremely complicated shipping traffic. We have very sensitive ecology and shorelines where we know that if there was an oil spill of any size, it would be extremely difficult to clean up.

Given that the industry standard for oil spill response is a 10% cleanup of oil, let me say again that members representing the southern part of British Columbia are committed to protecting their coastline, the economy, and the jobs that depend on it. They are just as concerned about the impacts of oil tanker traffic, especially when it is an unrefined, raw product that has no value-added jobs in Canada and no energy security benefit for Canada. Certainly, for British Columbians, the shipment of what we view as an increased level of danger by more oil tanker traffic and a thicker, unrefined product is all downside for our coast. There is no upside.

If the government is willing to put in strong measures for the north coast, why not for the south coast? There is still no peer-reviewed science that tells us how bitumen would react in the marine environment, in rough water with sediment in it. Who is going to have an oil spill with no waves? It just boggles the mind that the Liberal government could have approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline in the absence of evidence that bitumen can be recovered from the marine environment and that our response times are adequate to clean it.

What we have is some suspicion or concern based on what has been observed from other times when bitumen has been spilled in the marine environment. The diluent, which allows the raw, unrefined bitumen to flow, may evaporate very quickly. The evaporation itself may pose dangers to first responders, so it might be that first responders have to keep away. Certainly, if there was a bitumen spill in a heavily populated area, such as downtown Vancouver, a million people would be affected by a spill with much more toxic fumes than a refined product would have. We saw that in the Kalamazoo spill, which was in fresh water, but that was a huge occupational exposure.

When first responders have to stay away and cannot get to the spill quickly, this means that the diluent has more time to evaporate and there is an increased risk that the bitumen would sink. I have folders full of science reports from the Polaris Institute, the Royal Society of Canada, and others that talk about the stickiness and impact on marine wildlife such as sea otters and sea birds, let alone what would happen if we end up with bitumen coating the seabed. The damage that would be done trying to clean that up is alarming to contemplate.

We ask again, how is it that although the north coast partial oil tanker ban is being lauded by many of us on the coast and in the environmental movement, we do not have a concomitant level of protection in the south? We do not have confidence that our oil spill response is in a respectable and responsible place.

It turns out I am splitting my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni. I look forward to his speech. We are full of surprises today.

My understanding is that the response regulations have not been updated or tightened since 1995. The Liberal government has had two and a half years to make that change. It has not. It is my understanding that if there is an oil spill in my region, the corporate entity responsible for the oil spill has 72 hours to get there. It is not in violation of the regulations unless it does not have booms and an oil spill response plan enacted within three days. How could that ever give any of us any confidence?

If the current government, or the previous government, really wanted to have pipelines approved and give coastal people any measure of confidence, then surely it would have upgraded and tightened those response times, as Washington State has done, repeatedly, as has Alaska.

When I was chair of the Islands Trust Council, we heard from our fellow governments at the local, regional, and state level that they were extremely concerned about Canada's, or British Columbia's, poor level of preparedness for an oil spill. Oil does not recognize the international boundary. They are very concerned, given the fast-moving currents. First of all, we are shipping a dangerous product for which there is no adequate response technology, and if we do not have the response times in place, the oil will move quickly to their side of the border. Certainly, their aquaculture industry is extremely concerned about our poor level of preparedness.

I am very glad to continue to see the Washington State governor salute the British Columbia NDP premier, John Horgan, for the very strong stand that he is taking to say, “I believe that the oil spill response plans for B.C.'s south coast are inadequate.”

We are seeing now, in court, the provincial government saying that as soon as the oil hits the shoreline, it is its responsibility and jurisdiction. If the federal government is not going to adequately regulate to protect this resource, then the provincial government will consider implementing regulations itself that would protect coastal ecology and coastal jobs.

To my regret, yesterday the federal Liberal government decided to intervene in that case to oppose my premier's efforts to better protect the coast where the Liberal government has failed to. Our New Democrat leader, Jagmeet Singh, urged the Prime Minister to join the British Columbia premier so they would co-operatively go to the courts together and ask for clarification.

That would have been leadership, and it would have been a real sign of co-operation and trying to get the right answer. Instead, to see the federal government intervening against the British Columbia government, which is simply trying to strengthen and increase the safety net, is extremely discouraging. What a strange way of spending both the government's legal resources and taxpayers' dollars. How on Earth could that be a good expenditure? What we need to be doing is strengthening the ecological safety net, and not fighting against stronger measures in court.

When I was chair of the Islands Trust Council, we heard from our Washington State colleagues about how important it was to have geographic response plans in place for oil spill prevention and preparedness. These are micro-studies of a particular region that would be enacted in the event of an oil spill. The responsible spiller, whoever that was, would know to boom this. The spiller is likely to be a corporate entity, and they do a pretty good job of looking after their own business.

We would love to see geographic response plans in place. I am pleased that the B.C. government is pushing for that.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the NDP will support the legislation, which is a positive. This issue has been important to the government. It was raised during the last federal election, and the government is fulfilling that commitment.

I am a bit disappointed in the NDP's approach on the national interest and how it is prepared to forgo that based on the position that the environment has to be taken into consideration and there is absolutely no consideration given to the national interest. The member mentioned, for example, that she was disappointed by the federal government's actions with respect to the courts and not being onside with British Columbia.

Would the member at least acknowledge that the national interest does take into consideration our environment and the economy? The Trans Mountain pipeline is an excellent example of that. There even is controversy within the NDP. We have an NDP premier in Alberta saying that Albertans want the transcontinental. Does the member believe that the NDP premier has any merit whatsoever to her argument?

Mr. Speaker, I salute the Alberta New Democrat premier, Rachel Notley. She campaigned on a strong platform of standing up for the existing jobs and industry in her province, and she is continuing to do that. I also salute New Democrat premier, John Horgan, who campaigned against the Kinder Morgan pipeline and said loudly that he would use every measure he could within his limited provincial jurisdiction to protect the coast, and he is doing that.

From my perspective, when we hear in Kinder Morgan's filings to the National Energy Board that the permanent jobs in British Columbia are 50, and we recognize the tens of thousands of jobs that are dependent on a clean environment, on sport fishing, on tourism, and everything in the coast, for us it does not compute. I would argue that the true national interest would have been for the Liberal government to have kept its election promises to redo the Kinder Morgan review, but, most important, to truly reconcile with indigenous people. If the Liberals are to sign off on UNDRIP, then they certainly cannot ram a pipeline through and fight first nations in court. It is in the national interest to protect the environment. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution to the debate. Politicians will often pick a position and then try to find facts that support their position, and I completely understand that. However, the member raised concerns about the science regarding diluted bitumen.

In the recent response to B.C.'s policy intentions paper for engagement activities related to spill management by the government, it says:

Federal scientists have published or presented over sixty papers on diluted bitumen science in peer-reviewed fora since 2012....to determine the fate, behaviour, potential impacts, and effectiveness of response techniques on a variety of heavy oil products....This research has ranged from lab-scale and pilot-scale tests of oil spill behaviour to field trials and evaluations of response technology. Findings have shown that diluted bitumen behaviour falls within the range of conventional oil products and so conventional mechanical recovery methods have been found effective...

The science on this is very clear. Could the member point to actual evidence showing the contrary? Will she then go to other arguments that may back her position? Science should not be one of them.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as Islands Trust council chair, I started writing to the Conservative ministers of transport and environment starting in 2011, asking them to show me the science they had. Apparently that caused a bit of a ripple in the departments because it had not been studied. The marine environment studies are extremely limited.

Just a year ago, the Liberal transport minister was quoted on the radio saying that the government did not know how it reacted and through the oceans protection plan, it would study its behaviour in the marine environment. I have a file full of peer-reviewed papers that say this needs more study in the marine environment and in estuaries and places where there would be sediment and waves.

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise today to speak to this bill. Before I get started, I want to acknowledge all my colleagues in the House, especially in the Conservative Party.

We have had an incredible loss this week of our good friend from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. It is important that I acknowledge not just the loss of our friend, but the strength and courage of everyone in the House, especially our colleagues from the Conservative Party, for coming back here in honour of their colleague and constituents and for showing up for work yesterday. I was at committee and I was really touched by how everyone was dealing with this, but at the same time showing up for work. I want to commend them. My heart goes out to them, to the family, and to all the constituents of our good friend.

We are speaking to a bill to ban tankers on the north coast. I appreciate the efforts that are being made on the bill. Of course, there are some gaps that we have concerns about, certainly around ministerial jurisdiction and the ability for a minister to override some of this legislation. These are serious concerns. I could push the bill aside and open the door for something that we would not want to see happen, which is tanker traffic in a pristine area.

We have heard Liberal colleagues talk about the importance of this ecosystem. We have heard the Conservatives talk about jobs, and I will get to that in a minute. Most important, we are making a decision on legislation that protects our ecosystems for generations to come. We know how valuable those ecosystems are. I live on the coast, so I really understand how important our coastal waters are. We rely on clean oceans for our food, our economy, and our culture. It is precious and we must do everything we can to mitigate any chance that we could destroy these ecosystems forever, or even for decades, and upset our whole way of life.

When I talk about our way of life, we do not just use the ocean for transportation and the things I outlined. The ocean is our home. When I think about the north coast, I think about the south coast. There is no dividing line or border between the north and the south coasts. There is no wall between them. Currents, winds, and tides move the water from the north coast to the south coast. The fish migrate from the north coast to the south coast. Salmon move up and down. As coastal people, we move up and down. When I hear the Prime Minister say that tankers do not belong on the north coast, I have a hard understanding why he thinks they belong on the south coast and wants to increase tanker traffic sevenfold.

Yesterday, a great speech was given by my friend from Vancouver Quadra. She talked about witnessing “the environmental, economic and social devastation caused by the Exxon Valdez and BP catastrophes” in the Gulf of Mexico. “One major spill along B.C.’s shorelines would threaten fragile ecosystems, endanger wildlife, harm lives and communities, and jeopardize many of our” tens of thousands of “coastal jobs”. It is simply not worth the risk.”

It is clear that the spill, which happened over 25 years, is still impacting the community and causing devastation. She expressed that, and I appreciate her efforts. She is genuine about her support of a ban on the north coast. However, she could not square it when I asked her how she could support the Kinder Morgan pipeline. I have a lot of concerns with the Liberals talking from both sides of the coasts, or from both sides of their mouth. I am confused and I have questions.

I will pivot over to Kinder Morgan. It is important to talk about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. It is integrated. When we talk about a ban on the north coast, again, it is connected to the south coast. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the government is looking to approve a pipeline that is going to increase tanker traffic sevenfold.

The Prime Minister said in his 2015 campaign that if he was the prime minister, Kinder Morgan would have to go back to the drawing board, and that the process would need to be redone. Redone was a three-member panel that travelled around, listening to selected people and groups. It heard loud and clear from southern British Columbians that we did not want a pipeline. Therefore, I am confused. If that is the renewed process and the government is still moving forward, then there is not a lot of trust in the new three-member process that was delivered to the coastal people.

I have another quote from my friend from Vancouver Quadra with respect to the tanker ban. She said, “promise made, a promise kept.” Let us talk about a promise made, a promise broken, because that is Kinder Morgan, that is electoral reform, and a number of things. The list goes on and on. What we heard was a promise to protect coastal British Columbians. However, we know we do not have the science and the evidence-based decision-making, which the government said it would abide by, on how it will clean up raw bitumen.

As a coastal person, in the last couple of years we had a diesel spill in the Heiltsuk territory that we could not clean up. It affected the shellfish. It affected the Heiltsuk people's way of life, their economy, and their ability to sustain themselves. After the Conservatives closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, there was a 14-hour delay in dealing with the bunker fuel spill. How will the government deal with a spill from a supertanker full of crude oil? It cannot.

When the Simushir was off the coast of Haida Gwaii, we worried that it would land on the beaches of Haida Gwaii, on the traditional territory of the Haida people. Luckily, the Coast Guard got up there in time. The government is saying that we are going to get two tugboats and that is going to save us. I am sorry. British Columbians do not feel safe about two tugboats saving us and protecting us from an oil spill. We will appreciate them and we will take them. However, we are not feeling that confident based on scenarios like the Queen of the North. These are all examples that we can cite.

We had a spill in 1988 off the coast of Washington, and it landed on our beaches as far north as where I live in Tofino. It is not that it might happen; it is that it will happen at some point. Therefore, I have huge concerns with respect to the pipeline.

The other part of the conversation I do not feel is happening is this, and there is misleading information with respect to it. We hear that jobs will be lost and that it will allow more foreign oil to come to Canada. This is misleading. These pipelines are not designed to replace foreign oil. They will not replace oil from Nigeria or Saudi Arabia. This is made for export. No conversations are happening about a transition, about energy security, about refining more oil, and how we do that while we are in the midst of a transition.

We have seen what Norway has done. It put a trillion dollars in the bank, while Canada put $11 billion in the bank. Where is the trust from the Canadian people that we are investing in assets for future generations? Norway is earning $50 billion in interest alone off of its wealth fund.

We know we can do better and be more responsible with the management of our resources. We can find a better way for our future and that of our children by creating jobs, not exporting jobs, but also with respect to the transition that is needed, and needed now. The world cannot wait. We have to protect our pristine coastlines and ecosystems. They are sensitive. They cannot afford an oil spill of raw bitumen.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, to reinforce the importance of the commitment made by the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the election in terms of having a moratorium put in place, this proposed legislation would fulfill that particular commitment. However, the government as a whole, in dealing with our natural resources and working with the many different stakeholders, from indigenous peoples to provincial entities, has recognized how important it is that we move forward in terms of both economic development and ensuring the interests of our environment.

Would the member not acknowledge that we can, in fact, do both at the same time and that it is indeed in the national interest?

Madam Speaker, yes, we absolutely can. In fact, we are doing that right now where I live in coastal British Columbia. We have 100,000 jobs in tourism that rely on clean oceans and a healthy environment.

As New Democrats, we would like to see a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. We wish that the government would have pursued those same ambitious goals the Liberals talked about in 2015 in their campaign. However, when we look at the bill before us, the Prime Minister made a commitment: crude oil supertankers just have no place on B.C.'s north coast. I could not agree more, but the Prime Minister seems to believe that they belong on B.C.'s south coast.

There is no wall between the north coast and the south coast. The water does not go through a filter or anything like that. Our tides move. Our currents move. The wind moves water. Water moves. Our fish move. They migrate from the north to the south. Our whales migrate from the north to the south. There is no wall between the north and south coasts.

We need to protect our coasts. Therefore, I wish that this proposed legislation expanded beyond the north coast and included the south coast and was bold in protecting coastal waters.

There was an oil spill off the coast of Washington State, and that oil spill ended up on the west coast of Vancouver Island. That is how far it travelled, and this was a small oil spill. When we talk about the environment and the economy, yes, we can do both, but we do not need supertankers moving crude oil to protect the environment and grow the economy.

Madam Speaker, my colleague really is a strong defender, not only of his riding but of what we on the coast of British Columbia feel.

It is odd being in the House, because we have the Conservatives and the Liberals both trying to out-pipeline each other, and here we are standing in the face of stark evidence of what climate change is currently doing to our planet and what it is about to do.

We acknowledge that there are economic opportunities in moving toward a just transition. My colleague talked about that. I would like him to highlight, when we are talking about the national interest, what our coastal economy is really based on and what the potential is for the future when we take that forward-looking view, bringing in first nations, bringing in economic tourism and sportfishing, and wrapping that up all together for a clear vision of what we want to see on the coast going on through this century?

Madam Speaker, I belonged to a chamber of commerce that went from 160 members to 330 members. In fact, I was the executive director of that chamber of commerce for five years. I watched the economy grow, and the economy grew with really great foundational principles of a community that had core values based on the protection of the environment while growing the economy and working for reconciliation.

These jobs rely on a clean environment. When we think about our oceans and the national interest, it is in the national interest that we have a clean, healthy ocean, whether we live in Regina or Newfoundland.

We have had people move to our community from every province in this country, work in our community, and enjoy the beautiful environment we have. Almost all of those people would say, after leaving a place like Tofino, that we should not be increasing tanker traffic on the coast of British Columbia.

That is in our national interest: protecting our economy and growing a sustainable, healthy economy, a marine-based economy that relies on clean sensitive ecosystems.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to join in the discussion about Bill C-48 and the important role it would play in the protection of the province I represent, British Columbia.

Bill C-48, an act that would establish an oil tanker moratorium on British Columbia's north coast, is a significant step we are taking to enhance environmental protections for our coastlines. Preventing accidents from occurring in the first place is our primary goal. This measure, which complements the $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, takes a precautionary approach to help safeguard the extremely ecologically sensitive marine environment in this region.

The B.C. oil tanker moratorium would build on the existing voluntary tanker exclusion zone, which has been in effect since 1985. To protect our shoreline, the voluntary tanker exclusion zone ensures that loaded tankers carrying oil from Valdez, Alaska to U.S. west coast ports transit west of the tanker exclusion zone boundary.

By formalizing an oil tanker moratorium, this legislation would prohibit tankers carrying large shipments of crude or persistent oils from stopping, loading, and unloading at ports and marine installations in northern British Columbia. The moratorium area would extend from the Canada-U.S. border in the north down to the point on British Columbia's mainland adjacent to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, and it would also include the beautiful islands of Haida Gwaii.

The legislation would also include strong penalty provisions for contravention that could reach up to $5 million. This would help keep our waters and coasts safe and clean for use today, while protecting them for future generations. Through this legislation, we would put in place unprecedented levels of environmental protections for the marine environment in northern British Columbia. The precautionary approach taken in Bill C-48 would target both crude oil and persistent oil products that are likely to remain in the environment the longest if spilled.

Under the act, the Governor in Council would have authority to amend the schedule of prohibited persistent oil products. Amendments to the schedule would be done via regulation and could be considered following a review that would assess new science and evidence around the fate and behaviour of the petroleum product when spilled, advances in cleanup technology, and institutional arrangements for responding to vessel-source oil spills. Indeed, environmental safety and science would be the main considerations for adding products to the schedule or removing products from it.

During consultations and witness statements, we heard about the importance of environmental protections in this region. Coastal communities and industries rely on healthy ecosystems to protect their way of life and livelihoods, for example through fish populations that could become threatened should a serious spill occur in this region.

The moratorium would protect the livelihoods of communities on British Columbia's north coast by providing a heightened level of environmental protection while continuing to allow for community and industry resupply by small tanker.

Bill C-48 demonstrates that we do not support large shipments of crude oil or persistent oil products in this region. The British Columbia oil tanker moratorium would take a preventative approach to oil spills in the region so that Canada's coastal habitats, ecosystems, and marine species, including marine mammals, are able to thrive.

In addition to establishing the moratorium, we are also taking steps through the oceans protection plan to improve our incident prevention and response regime, and address environmental concerns in the event of a marine incident.

The role and authority of the Canadian Coast Guard are being strengthened to ensure rapid and efficient responses in case of a marine incident. The Canadian Coast Guard will offer training to indigenous communities for search and rescue, environmental response, and incident command to allow for a greater role in marine safety for these communities.

We are implementing the incident command system and enhancing emergency coordination centres across the government in order to bolster our response capabilities. These measures would improve the coordination of response actions of departments and agencies when dealing with an incident by using a common response system.

During the response to larger pollution incidents, our government quickly brings together relevant subject matter experts in the field of environmental protection who supply consolidated scientific and technical advice on environmental concerns, priorities, and spill countermeasure strategies. This ultimately enables an effective and timely response to pollution incidents.

Clearly, the oil tanker moratorium is just one of many initiatives in our comprehensive plan to protect the marine environment. The oceans protection plan, which is the largest investment ever made in our oceans and waterways, and the oil tanker moratorium act are two concrete actions we are taking to ensure a clean and vibrant marine environment. These measures reinforce our determination to advance science and utilize valuable traditional knowledge to keep our waters and wildlife clean, safe, and healthy for generations to come. This is why we hope we can expect the support of the members present for the passage of this bill, which moves this critical agenda an important step forward in protecting our pristine environment.

I stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, a bill that is yet another disappointment for all Canadians who want to see our country prosper.

The Liberals may want Canadians to believe that this moratorium is in their interest, but that is just not the case. This legislation is not justified by an environmental or economic study, nor is it supported by proper consultation with the impacted communities, industries, and experts. Rather, the legislation before us today is the fulfillment of political will, and its economic impact goes far beyond the prescribed geographic area in the legislation.

In considering Bill C-48, we must look at the full picture. The proposed moratorium is yet another hit to Canada's oil and gas sector, a sector that has already lost $80 billion in investment under the Prime Minister's watch. That is the biggest decline in Canadian energy investment in 70 years. Just last week, Canadians found out that the Prime Minister's government gave taxpayer money to an environmental lobby group to hire an activist to protest against the Trans Mountain pipeline project, a pipeline project that is supported by its environmental assessment and that the government told Canadians it supports. Canadians deserve a government that is up front with them, a government that does not undermine their prosperity.

Championing Canada's energy sector should be common sense. The responsible development of our natural resources is essential to our country's prosperity. It is our second-biggest export and provides tremendous economic opportunity. In fact, it employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It creates billions of dollars of tax revenue, tax revenue that benefits Canadians and communities across this country from coast to coast to coast, and we cannot dismiss the fact that oil produced and transported in Canada operates within strict environmental standards while also upholding human rights and workplace standards.

The message that the government's action is sending is that it would rather import oil from countries like Saudi Arabia than create infrastructure to move Canadian oil across this country, and by obstructing Canada's access to the global market, it is opening the door for countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, countries that do not have the same environmental standards and human rights that Canada does.

The demand for oil is not ceasing but growing, and I believe the world needs more Canadian oil. The fact is that Canada is capable of providing more energy and greater energy security to Canada and the world, but to harness that opportunity, we need new infrastructure. We need pipelines and access to reach new markets, and to get that done, we need federal leadership, not tomorrow but today.

Unfortunately, that is not what we have before us. What we have is another step forward in the Prime Minister's plan to phase out the oil sands. The United States is Canada's largest energy trading partner, which is an important relationship, but landlocking Canadian oil does not put our country on a path for long-term energy success. That is why the diversification of Canada's energy partners is also important. By not relying on a single market, we will reduce our economic risk and better protect the long-term health of our country's economy.

The Asia-Pacific region is a large and valuable market opportunity. It is a market that can only be accessed through marine transport. The tanker moratorium proposed on the north coast of British Columbia hinders that access. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has said, “The moratorium would cut off the most economic path to Asia and sends yet another signal to the investment community that Canada is not open for business.”

The Liberals are turning away business, and for what benefit? The moratorium bans oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of oil from loading, unloading, or anchoring in the north coast of British Columbia. It does not ban tanker traffic. It does not take any substantial action to protect the environment. It penalizes an industry and prohibits communities in northern British Columbia from accessing economic opportunity.

Let us contrast that with real action to protect our coastlines. Our former Conservative government took strong action to ensure that Canada's tanker safety system is robust and modern. It introduced changes that included modernizing Canada's navigation system, improving inspections for all tankers, enhancing area response planning, increasing penalties for polluters, and building marine safety capacity in indigenous communities. That is tangible action to protect our environment, action that improves environmental protection in our waters and our coastlines, all while keeping Canada on the right path to harness our economic opportunities.

The legislation in front of us does not build on that meaningful action. As I have said, it builds on the Prime Minister's record of building roadblocks to stop the success of our energy sector. It is not in the interests of Canadians.

The Prime Minister already vetoed the northern gateway pipeline that would have brought economic opportunity to the impacted region. Now, if this ban is enforced, the north coast of British Columbia will be closed for energy business. Again, let us remember that is closed for business without any meaningful consultation, a concern that is rightfully echoed by industry leaders and impacted communities.

In fact, this tanker moratorium is even being pushed through without properly consulting coastal first nations. There is considerable support among British Columbia's coastal first nations who want to pursue energy development opportunities that are environmentally sound. I find it quite hypocritical of the Liberal government to move ahead without that meaningful consultation, particularly given that it has committed to implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including free, prior, and informed consent.

It is no surprise that the Liberals' actions are already being challenged. The Lax Kw'alaams are among 30 first nations that are challenging the tanker ban in court. This ban prevents them from opportunities for future energy development on their land. It hinders their people from the economic benefits that it could yield.

The Lax Kw'alaams band has said that they were disheartened that this bill that is directed at their territories was introduced “without prior informed consent or even adequate consultation and input” from their people.

Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd. was working toward a pipeline project that would have yielded tremendous economic opportunity and helped Canadian oil reach the Asia-Pacific market. However, with this ban, its project is essentially rendered useless. In response to the government's legislation it has said:

[T]here has been no consultation with those communities harmfully impacted in the interior of British Columbia or those in Alberta—a situation which certainly falls short of the deep consultation the Crown requires of corporations proposing major resource development projects on the traditional lands of Indigenous Peoples.

I cannot support this legislation. It cannot be overstated that this legislation takes no meaningful action to improve environmental protection in the north coast of British Columbia. It is not justified by science or safety. I cannot support the Liberal government's continued mismanagement of the energy sector. Many of my constituents work in the energy sector and their livelihoods depend on it. Canada needs to diversify its energy-trading partners, not introduce regulations and measures that will landlock it.

The Prime Minister needs to show leadership. The Liberals need to start supporting energy projects that are determined to be safe for the environment and in the interests of Canadians. They need to stand up for our energy sector and they need to stand up for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is tremendously useful to debate these issues and get away from the overly dogmatic idea of being totally for or totally against oil. It is important to consider the realities of each side.

In my colleague's opinion, what kind of debate could we have in order to obtain information on oil production from the oil sands side?

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we look at the bigger picture. Canada's economy relies heavily on the oil industry as a whole.

Coming from an area in Canada that has many different types of development of oil and gas, it is important to have those proper consultations with everybody, landowners, industries, first nations, to see how we can all benefit economically from these projects.

Canada has one of the highest, if not the highest, environmental standards for extracting oil, transporting oil, and also workplace standards for Canadians residents who work in oil and gas.

Mr. Speaker, I live right in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan and Alberta. We are a very interesting city, because we are the only bi-provincial city in all of Canada. We rely on both provinces quite a lot.

During the past couple of years, my city has lost 8,000 to 10,000 residents because they have gone back home, typically to the east coast. They had come out to Lloydminster to work.

I completely agree with my colleague that this is nothing more than to keep our natural resources in the ground, which is shameful, especially when our country has some of the highest environmental standards and regulations to begin with, as well as with the transportation of our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her maiden speech after her recent election in her beautiful riding. I know my colleague and all Conservative colleagues here, and probably all party MPs, go to their ridings each weekend. We work hard. We have activities in the communities, such as spaghetti dinners, etc.

The member will be able to share with us everything she hears from her constituents about the need to ensure Canadian oil can be exported outside the country. It is a major issue.

How can we still, today in 2018, be importing petroleum from dictatorship countries when we have all these resources here? Could my colleague share with us some of the comments she has heard from her constituents?

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Battlefords—Lloydminster are very disappointed that the public safety minister, who is from Saskatchewan, is not standing up for them and for the people of Saskatchewan. They do not believe the government when it says that it is for the extraction of our natural resources and our oil. I know many people will ensure they get out and vote in the next election. They will do everything in their power to ensure they do not have another Liberal government.

On a more serious note, I would like to take a moment to talk about my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who passed away very suddenly this week. I never imagined this could happen. I share his family's sorrow, though of course mine could never equal theirs. His young children will not get to share amazing moments in their lives with their father, and that is staggeringly sad. I would therefore like to publicly state that I encourage them to hang in there. One day, they will surely find joy in living again, and we are here for them.

As usual, I want to say acknowledge all of the residents of Beauport—Limoilou who are tuning in. I would like to let them know that there will be a press conference Monday morning at my office. I will be announcing a very important initiative for our riding. I urge them to watch the news or read the paper when the time comes.

Bill C-48 would essentially enact a moratorium on the entire Pacific coast. It would apply from Prince Rupert, a fascinating city that I visited in 2004 at the age of 18, to Port Hardy, at the northern tip of Vancouver Island. This moratorium is designed to prevent oil tankers, including Canadian ones, that transport more than 12,500 tons of oil from accessing Canada's inland waters, and therefore our ports.

This moratorium will prohibit the construction of any pipeline project or maritime port beyond Port Hardy, on the northern tip of Vancouver Island, to export our products to the west. In the past three weeks, the Liberal government has slowly but surely been trying to put an end to Canada's natural resources, and oil in particular. Northern Gateway is just one example.

The first thing the Liberals did when they came to power was to amend the environmental assessment process managed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; they even brag about it. Northern Gateway was in the process of being accepted, but as a result of these amendments, the project was cancelled, even though the amendments were based on the cabinet's political agenda and not on scientific facts, as the Liberal government claims.

When I look at Bill C-48, which would enact a moratorium on oil tankers in western Canada, it seems clear to me that the Liberals had surely been planning to block the Northern Gateway project for a while. Their argument that the project did not clear the environmental assessment is invalid, since they are now imposing a moratorium that would have prevented this project from moving forward regardless.

The Prime Minister and member for Papineau has said Canada needs to phase out the oil sands. Not only did he say that during the campaign, but he said it again in Paris, before the French National Assembly, in front of about 300 members of the Macron government, who were all happy to hear it. I can guarantee my colleagues that Canadians were not happy to hear that, especially people living in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta who benefit economically from this natural resource. Through their hard work, all Canadians benefit from the incredible revenues and spinoffs generated by that industry.

My colleague from Prince Albert gave an exceptional speech this morning. He compassionately explained how hard it has been for families in Saskatchewan to accept and understand the decisions being made one after the other by this Liberal government. The government seems to be sending a message that is crystal clear: it does not support western Canada's natural resources, namely oil and natural gas. What is important to understand, however, is that this sector represents roughly 60% the economy of the western provinces and 40% of Canada's entire economy.

I can see why the Minister of Environment and Climate Change says we need to tackle climate change first. The way she talks to us every day is so arrogant. We believe in climate change. That is not the issue. Climate change and natural resources are complex issues, and we must not forget the backdrop to this whole debate. People are suffering because they need to put food on the table. Nothing has changed since the days of Cro-Magnon man. People have to eat every day. People have to find ways to survive.

When the Liberals go on about how to save the planet and the polar bears, that is their post-modern, post-materialist ideology talking. Conservatives, in contrast, talk about how to help families get through the day. That is what the Canadian government's true priority should be.

Is it not completely absurd that even now, in 2018, most of the gas people buy in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, and Ontario comes from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia even though we have one of the largest oil reserves in the world? Canada has the third-largest oil reserve in the world, in fact. That is not even counting the Arctic Ocean, of which we own a sizeable chunk and which has not yet been explored. Canada has tremendous potential in this sector.

As I have often told many of my Marxist-Leninist, leftist, and other colleagues, the price of oil is going to continue to rise dramatically until 2065 because of China's and India's fuel consumption. Should Canada say no to $1 trillion in economic spinoffs until then? Absolutely not.

How will we afford to pay for our hospitals, our schools, and our social services that are so dear to the left-wing advocates of the welfare state in Canada? As I said, the priority is to meet the needs of Canadians and Canada, a middle power that I adore.

To get back to the point I was making, as my colleague from Prince Albert said, the decision regarding Bill C-48 and the moratorium was made by cabinet, without any consultation or any study by a parliamentary committee. Day after day, the Liberals brag about being the government that has consulted more with Canadians over the past three years than any government in history. It is always about history with them.

The moratorium will have serious consequences for Canada's prosperity and the economic development of the western provinces, which represent a growing segment of the population. How can the Liberals justify the fact that they failed to conduct any environmental or scientific impact assessments, hold any Canada-wide consultations, or have a committee examine this issue? They did not even consult with the nine indigenous nations that live on the land covered by the moratorium. The NDP ought to be alarmed about that. That is the point I really want to talk about.

I have here a legal complaint filed with the B.C. Supreme Court by the Lax Kw'alaams first nation—I am sorry if I pronounced that wrong—represented by John Helin. The plaintiffs are the indigenous peoples living in the region covered by the moratorium. Only nine indigenous nations from that region are among the plaintiffs. The defendant is the Government of British Columbia.

The lawyer's argument is very interesting from a historical perspective.

“The claim area includes and is adjacent to an open and safe deepwater shipping corridor and contains lands suitable for development as an energy corridor and protected deepwater ports for the development and operation of a maritime installation, as defined in Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act”.

“The plaintiffs' aboriginal title encompasses the right to choose to what uses the land can be put, including use as a marine installation subject only to justifiable environmental assessment and approval legislation”.

He continues:

The said action by Canada “discriminates against the plaintiffs by prohibiting the development of land...in an area that has one of the best deepwater ports and safest waterways in Canada, while permitting such development elsewhere”, such as in the St. Lawrence Gulf, the St. Lawrence River, and the Atlantic Ocean.

My point is quite simple. We have a legal argument here that shows that not only does the territory belong to the indigenous people and the indigenous people were not consulted, but that the indigenous people, whom the Liberals are said to love, are suing the Government of British Columbia. This will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court because this moratorium goes against their ancestral rights on their territory, which they want to develop for future oil exports. This government is doing a very poor job of this.

Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that I enjoy listening to the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou speak because he is a good orator who articulates his thoughts very well. It is nice to hear well-thought-out arguments, even though I do not entirely agree with him.

That being said, you raised a number of very important arguments. However, I want to correct you right away when you describe the Liberals as idealists. Clearly, they are nothing more than opportunists. That is all there is to it.

However, I would like your opinion on the fact that Canadian oil has at times been described here as the cleanest in the world. Honestly, can we talk about the serious problem with developing the oil sands or the tar sands? Let us call them oil sands for some positivity.

What do you think of the new technologies that could make this operation acceptable? Transporting oil is on the same level as using it, but oil extraction is unequivocally damaging to the environment.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian oil is the most highly regulated oil in the world. Our oil is subject to the largest number of regulations regarding the environment, transportation safety, taxation, consumption, royalties, and so forth.

Would the founding nations consider it normal today for hundreds of huge oil tankers to cross the Atlantic ocean and come to this country when scientists are telling us that we have the third largest oil reserve in the world? The carbon capture technology for the oil sands is getting better by the day.

We need to improve our environmental practices, I think that goes without saying. However, once again, how can we justify telling our grandchildren that we do not want to share in the wealth created over the next 40 years by the China's and India's incredible consumption of oil? Those countries are not going to stop purely for environmental reasons. They are going to consume oil. They are in a full-blown industrial revolution and it is their right to do so. We could sell up to $1 trillion in oil to build hospitals and an education system that are efficient.

Mr. Speaker, it is rare to be able to take part in a dialogue such as this. I would like to ask my colleague a question.

One trillion dollars is a lot of money. Do Canada's oil executives want to invest in improving the extraction process? This is what I know about the extraction process. Simply put, natural gas is used to heat water to remove the oil from the sand. This creates a lot of carbon dioxide. That is the biggest problem with production, but there is also the issue of the water contaminated by the different chemicals found in the tailings ponds, prominently displayed in National Geographic, to our disgrace.

Dare we hope that the industry will invest in making the process cleaner?

Mr. Speaker, environmentalists, just like NDP members, all have the same problem. They suffer from amnesia.

Since the 19th century and over the past 40 years, we have seen great environmental achievements, not only in Canada, but also around the world, with issues such as acid rain or the environment in our cities. The air in London in 1845 was worse than it is today in Beijing. Remarkable progress has been made on the environment. What is disappointing about the NDP, the Liberals, and environmentalists is that they never acknowledge progress and the efforts of Canadians.

We are transitioning towards green energy, but we cannot change Canada's entire supply chain in the space of a few years. This is why we are talking about it, because we need to be able to take advantage of our resources in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the recorded division on third reading of Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, be further deferred until the expiry of the time provided for oral questions on Tuesday, May 8, 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today and speak to Bill C-48. In my opinion, it is a very balanced, comprehensive framework for a responsible and sustainable future. It would protect our precious coastal communities of northern British Columbia while supporting those communities as they enjoy the ability to grow and prosper in that beautiful part of the world.

It really does not matter which ocean one is facing. Whether it be the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic oceans, the health and protection of our coasts are critical to our environment, to our economy, and to all Canadians. In today's competitive markets, ensuring that the import and export of products is done in a safe and efficient manner is paramount to the vitality of globalized economies.

In Canada, our domestic shipping industry is the linchpin to our supply chain that allows us to competitively engage in the international marketplace. With a direct contribution of $3 billion annually to Canada's gross domestic product, transporting approximately $200 billion in international goods, the value of a strong domestic shipping industry is unquestionable. The marine industry not only ensures that our goods get to market, but it also provides essential supplies to rural and coastal communities. British Columbia's coastal communities know how important these resupply activities are.

British Columbians will also tell us that what they truly love about living on Canada's Pacific coast is the extraordinary beauty and the breathtaking landscapes, which they rely upon for food, for cultural activities, and for their very livelihoods. The abundance of nature's bounty is a cornerstone of their quality of life.

Obtaining the right balance of safe and efficient marine shipping while protecting our coastal waterways is top of mind for our government. To help preserve and protect our national heritage across all of Canada's coasts, we are investing $1.5 billion over five years in our national oceans protection plan. In parallel, we are also moving forward with Bill C-48, which proposes to formalize an oil tanker moratorium on British Columbia's north coast. This moratorium complements our ambitious oceans protection plan.

The goal of the oceans protection plan, and Canadians' expectation, is that a strong economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand. This is an unwavering commitment. Formalizing an oil tanker moratorium that would ban oil tankers from stopping along British Columbia's environmentally sensitive north coast is an important element of this commitment. While still allowing critical local resupply activities to continue, this moratorium would help protect the north shores of British Columbia and still enable communities to develop economically. This proposed legislation underscores that our government is serious about encouraging long-term economic growth in a way that does not harm our marine or coastal environments.

Given that the volume of goods moved by marine shipping has increased by almost 20% over the past decade, Canada needs to be well prepared for the associated risks of increased trade and marine development. Our goal is first and foremost to prevent incidents from occurring, and in the unfortunate event that they do take place, minimize their impacts on the environment, on local communities, and on the economy.

This proposed legislation builds on a solid foundation. Canada has had a comprehensive, multi-layered marine safety system in place for many years. This is reflected in our safety record. Although accidents have occasionally occurred in Canada, there has not been a major incident in decades.

Complementary to this legislation, the oceans protection plan will make important investments in science to better understand how oil behaves in water and to research more effective technologies for spill cleanup, including through partnerships with external research institutions and academia. In addition, we are significantly increasing our capacity to prevent incidents through investments, such as increased towing capacity for the Canadian Coast Guard. Through these initiatives, we want to build an economy that prioritizes responsible and sustainable growth.

I want to acknowledge that the shipping industry has evolved over the years to enhance its safety record. Design and construction have improved, as have safety and communications equipment. Seafarers are better trained than in the past. Lifeboat design and drills have also improved. All these contribute greatly to marine safety and security. Despite the relatively strong safety record that Canada enjoys, there is room for improvement.

We need to address gaps and continue to build a world-leading system that will keep pace with the growth and developments in the marine transportation industries. Canada needs to position itself for a future characterized by emerging and disruptive technologies, and new approaches. Connectivity and automation will have far-reaching impacts on the transportation sector and the economy as a whole.

Transport Canada is the federal department that oversees a comprehensive legislative and regulatory system that ensures marine transportation remains safe and efficient, and protects our marine environment. Canada has more than 60 marine safety regulations. The key components of this existing safety regime include compulsory pilotage areas in sensitive or busy waterways where marine pilots with local knowledge of the area are required, and marine safety inspectors to ensure that all vessels, including tankers, meet the strict safety requirements in Canadian law.

Building on this record of excellence and marine safety measures already announced under the national oceans protection plan, Bill C-48 would add another layer of protection. It would not only protect one of British Columbia's most sensitive marine environments, but would also complement several other initiatives that promote marine innovation in support of safe and environmentally friendly marine shipping.

In 2016, Transport Canada consulted Canadians on our transportation system. On the subject of the environment and innovation, Canadians told us that pollution should be reduced in all modes of transportation by using options such as alternative fuels and electric power. They also told us that government incentives and regulations can encourage the use of new technologies.

For example, the shore power technology for ports program is part of our effort to limit air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and to improve air quality in ports near major cities. The program reduces emissions by allowing docked ships to turn off their auxiliary diesel engines and connect to electric power. This is one way Canada is acting on its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels, and to do it by 2020. So far, seven ports have received funding under this program, five of which are in British Columbia, totalling $9.5 million for the B.C. ports.

Since January 1, 2015, under the North American emission control area in coastal waters, vessels operating in Canada must use fuel with a maximum sulphur content of .01%, or use technology that results in equivalent sulphur emissions to reduce air pollutants. These regulatory changes enacted by both Canada and the U.S. are expected to reduce sulphur oxides by 96%. This is another important example of how government uses incentives and regulations to enable the marine industry to develop innovative solutions to complex problems and invest in new technologies.

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about the improvements in technology and the changes we see that will actually help to protect our coasts and how much we are actually working to encourage research and to encourage the development of technology partnerships with the marine industry, with academia, with other federal departments and other governments to continue to work with us to develop innovative solutions that enable the official movement of goods and at the same time protect the marine environment. These partnerships are essential to enable us to share the latest innovations in research, knowledge, and intelligence on new technologies and to also encourage skills capacity for an increasingly knowledge-based economy.

Accordingly, the Government of Canada will strengthen the polluter pay principle by strengthening the Canadian ship-source oil pollution fund. We want to ensure adequate industry-funded compensation is available for those affected by oil spills. This includes removing the fund's current limit and providing unlimited compensation to those affected by an oil pollution incident. When compensation is beyond what is currently available, funds will be recovered by a levy on the companies that import and export oil by ship. The changes to the ship-source oil pollution fund will position Canada as a world leader among ship source liability and compensation regimes.

I should point out that Canada has a long-standing tradition of multilateralism related to international shipping. Canada is a founding member of the International Maritime Organization, the UN agency that regulates the world's maritime shipping. Canada also has a proud history of working closely with the International Maritime Organization to advance standards that promote maritime safety and security, protect the environment, and safeguard seafarers.

The Government of Canada will continue to contribute to the comprehensive body of international conventions supported by hundreds of recommendations governing every facet of shipping. In fact, as part of the oceans protection plan, the Government of Canada will strengthen its leadership role internationally. This includes playing an active role in developing international marine safety standards with the International Maritime Organization and other international partners.

As a trading nation, Canada relies on a safe and secure maritime transportation system to support our economic growth. A wide variety of cargo is transported through Canada's marine transportation system, from food and consumer goods to energy resources. Marine transportation is the primary means of transporting Canada's trade with other countries other than the United States. It is critical for economic growth in Canada which has provided us with one of the highest standards of living in the world.

The moratorium will continue to allow critical local resupply activities and still enable communities to develop economically. The moratorium does not apply to lighter oils such as gasoline, propane, or jet fuel that local communities and industries rely upon, nor will it apply to liquefied natural gas. Accordingly, opportunities remain open for the continued shipment of non-persistent oils.

Further, once passed by Parliament, the Governor in Council will have authority under the act to amend through regulation the schedule of persistent oils should future innovations and technological developments in the transportation of these products offer a significantly higher level of protection for our waters.

Amendments to the schedule could be considered following a regulatory review that would assess new scientific evidence about the fate and behaviour of petroleum products when spilled, cleanup technologies, and the state of institutional arrangements to respond to ship-source oil spills.

The schedule could only be revised through the regulatory amendment process. Environmental safety and science would be the primary considerations for any changes to the schedule.

Always keeping an opening for new technology and scientific development is testament to our commitment not only to protecting the environment but also to fostering innovation in the marine industry.

We are committed to demonstrating that a clean environment and a strong economy can go hand in hand, and that is why Bill C-48 is so important to all Canadians. The moratorium is but one of a suite of actions that the government is taking that will strengthen environmental protection, instilling confidence in Canadians that it is possible to have economic growth and to protect the environment, because this is not an either-or proposition.

I have a list of those who have demonstrated and expressed strong support for the passage of Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act. It is quite an exhaustive list: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Dogwood Initiative, Friends of Wild Salmon Coalition, Haida Gwaii, North West Watch, Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, SkeenaWild, and Stand.earth, and there are many more.

We remain open to enable future innovation and technological developments in the transportation of oil that offer a significantly higher level of protection for our waters today and for future generations.

I hope I can count on the support of all hon. members to establish in law an oil tanker moratorium on the north coast of British Columbia. Let us work together so we can continue to create a sustainable future for the generations that will follow.

Mr. Speaker, we really believe that consultation is actually the key to coming up with the best solution. It is about having those conversations. It is about hearing from all sides of the debate. It does not mean we should just restrict ourselves to one or another perspective. It is important that we get all those different perspectives. That will help us come up with the best solutions as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments on the northern tanker ban.

One of the elements the government has introduced is the oceans protection plan to look at how we protect our coastal communities. We have heard a lot about this so-called oceans protection plan.

One of the concerns is the technology that is supposed to exist to clean up dilbit. We just heard the question about Kinder Morgan and the proposal that would bring that diluted bitumen to the coast. It would bring a sevenfold increase of tanker traffic to the Vancouver port.

I am wondering if the hon. member could tell the House about the technology in the oceans protection plan that exists to clean up and deal with that toxic dilbit.

We believe that the technology will be developed. Earlier in this session, the transportation committee heard from a company that is actually proposing to take bitumen and press it into pucks, then cover them with a polymer coating. That will make it much safer to transport.

There are technological developments, both in spill cleanup and in how we are actually going to move this product. We will be seeing some of those coming onto the market very soon.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about this tanker moratorium off the west coast. Why is there such a difference in opinion from the west coast to the east coast? Let us put this in perspective.

In comparison, almost 4,000 tankers a day come through off the coast of New Brunswick down the St. Lawrence, many of those carrying oil from regions such as Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, which certainly have much worse human rights records and environmental standards. There are no problems with tankers coming down the east coast, but let us go to the west coast, where we have less than 200 tankers a day and less than 2% of the commercial tanker traffic off the west coast carries oil and bitumen.

Why is there such a difference with what we are doing on the east coast but we are more than happy to debilitate energy investment development off the west coast?

Mr. Speaker, it is important to look at the statistics, not just as a grand number, but what percentage of those vessels on the east coast are carrying persistent oils. As I said, this does not preclude transportation of gasoline and jet fuel, but it does provide protections for those more persistent oils.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week when the Minister of Transport was speaking to this piece of legislation, he indicated that one does not need to live on the coast to appreciate how valuable this act would be on the environment, economy, and people in the area of British Columbia. At that time, I mentioned that my daughter is an Earth Rangers ambassador, trying to save the Oregon spotted frog. Many of our children understand that we need to really protect the environment.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could answer how this particular piece of legislation complements the oceans protection plan, the $1.3 billion we are investing in biodiversity, one of the largest and most significant investments in nature conservation in Canada's history.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. It is not just a one issue deal. It is not just one bill. It is not just a single proposal we are implementing. It is to deal with conservation. It is important. It is to deal with preservation. That is something that had been ignored.

What we want to do is actually prevent accidents from happening. That is why there are investments in the oceans protection plan. That is why there are investments in conservation activities. It is the key to our future, and I believe the young people want us to do this kind of work.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use my time to put a question to the parliamentary secretary, and in the context of that, answer the question from the member for Foothills.

This ban on the north coast of British Columbia against large oil tankers has been in place since 1972. It was only under the previous prime minister, Mr. Harper, that it was removed. It was honoured by every government, including Progressive Conservative governments, from 1972 up to 2012.

I am originally from Cape Breton, and I asked those questions early on, and the reason it is different from the east coast has a lot to do with the intense ocean current action of the Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance. The ocean current in these areas is far more intense than in any of our coastal areas off Atlantic Canada. As well, geographically, Haida Gwaii, what we used to call the Queen Charlotte Islands, is right up against those channels. It is far too dangerous to have oil tankers on that coast, and the tankers on the B.C. coast are the only ones shipping dilbit. None in Atlantic Canada ship dilbit, which cannot be cleaned up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her education. I appreciate knowing that.

Knowing what the product being transported is, knowing how it is going to act when it hits the water, and knowing how currents are going to affect that product are absolutely key. We are undertaking that research to make sure we understand what that product would do, but we are not done yet.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to the commentary and the back-and-forth of the different questions and answers. As far as I know, this is a tanker ban, really a pipeline ban in northern British Columbia. It is just moving the traffic 100 kilometres further to the west.

The member opposite talked about doing this for the purpose of conservation. However, section 6 of the act gives cabinet the ability to give a blanket exception for any reason to allow the tanker traffic to continue. Therefore, it cannot be about conservation when the government gives itself a mechanism to do the exact opposite of that plan. I think that does matter.

Why would the government approve a pipeline like Trans Mountain when it means, in the name of conservation, to eliminate any traffic closer to the coast? Why would it not do it on the southern coast as well? Is there a difference in value between the two?

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the possibility for an exception is under extraordinary circumstances. If something changes, if there is an emergency, if technology changes so drastically that something needs to be adjusted, then it can be adjusted. However, a lot of homework needs to be done before something like that can be considered. The cabinet would have that ability. If there is some kind of emergency that it needs to address, it can do so. It is a very worthwhile piece of that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 is one part of the Liberals' plan to phase out Canada's oil and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend both directly and indirectly on Canadian energy. The Canadian Energy Research Institute has said that every job created in Canadian upstream oil and gas results in the creation of two indirect and three induced jobs in other sectors. From engineers in Edmonton to steel manufacturers in Hamilton and refinery workers in Sarnia and Saint John, Canada's economy depends on Canadian energy.

Canada can and should play a major role in the global future of oil and gas, for which demand will continue to grow. Of the world's top 10 oil and gas producers, Canada and the United States are the only two Liberal democracies, yet these Liberals' policies are suffocating Canada's energy sector while the others thrive.

Canada has long been the world's most environmentally and socially responsible oil and gas producer. The Liberals should champion Canada's expertise, innovation, and regulatory know-how. The Liberals should be proud of Canada's track record and of Canada's future in oil and gas, instead of imposing policies and laws to phase it out, like this tanker ban.

As developing countries modernize and the world's middle class grows, oil and natural gas will continue to be the most significant sources for meeting global energy needs. Therefore, the world needs more Canadian energy, and the world wants Canadian oil and gas.

The Liberals constantly undermine Canada's energy sector. They killed energy east with red tape and rural changes and outright vetoed the approved northern gateway pipeline. While the Trans Mountain expansion is at risk and a full-blown crisis is escalating, the Liberals are imposing Bill C-48 to ban on and off loading of crude and persistent oils on ports on B.C.'s north coast, which will cut Canada off from the most efficient route to the Asia Pacific and prevent any new energy infrastructure opportunities to the region. The International Energy Agency estimates that in the past five years, 69% of global oil demand growth has been in the Asia Pacific and that is expected to grow for decades. Canada needs to supply that demand because the United States is both Canada's biggest energy customer and competitor.

However, Bill C-48 is an intentional government-created roadblock that deprives Canadians of potential benefits. The bill will permanently prevent any opportunities for pipelines to transport environmentally and socially-responsible Canadian oil to the Prince Rupert-Kitimat area, where it could reach the rapidly growing Asia Pacific.

Deliberately limiting Canada's export potential by blocking access to tidewater risks the livelihoods of Canadians everywhere. It will put very real limits on future prosperity. Reaching tidewater in all directions for Canada's oil and gas should be a pressing priority. It makes no sense to delay or to equivocate on this from an economic, environmental or moral perspective. Stopping Canadian oil cedes market share to countries where standards, enforcement, and outcomes do not measure up to Canada's performance, to many corrupt regimes with abysmal environmental and human rights records where energy development only benefits a select and wealthy few.

A 2014 WorleyParsons study comparing major oil and gas producing jurisdictions confirmed that Canada maintained the highest level of environmental stringency and compliance, the highest level of regulatory transparency, life-cycle analysis, community consultation, and collaboration with indigenous people in the world. That conclusion echoed several major benchmarking assessments before it. I note that was before the last 2015 election.

Every time the Liberals attack Canada's track record of energy and environmental assessment and evaluation, they empower and embolden anti-Canadian energy activists who are fighting to shut down Canadian oil and gas and exports. That is how the Liberals have created the mess they are in, picking and choosing which energy projects to defend and to attack. For the Liberals, this is about politics, not about facts. Here are the facts.

The safety track record of Canada's energy infrastructure and transportation systems, including pipelines and tankers, has also long been world-leading. The evidence shows tankers have safely and regularly transported crude oil from Canada's west coast since the 1930s.

The previous Conservative government implemented a suite of strong measures to create a world-class tanker safety system, modernized Canada's navigation system, enhanced response planning and marine safety capacity for first nations communities, and ensured that polluters paid for spills and damages on all coasts. Canada already has industry-leading regulations with standards well beyond other jurisdictions on all aspects of tanker safety, pipeline safety, prevention, and response. The Liberals are building on that work.

The average response time of the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation has been 60 minutes for the last 10 years. The Canadian Shipping Act requires this corporation to have the capacity to clean up 10,000 tonnes of oil in 10 days. The largest marine spill to ever occur was on the east coast.

Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom of the Woodland Cree First Nation said, “What I don't understand about this tanker moratorium is that there's no other tanker moratorium on other coastlines in Canada. You have oil coming in from Saudi Arabia, up and down the St. Lawrence River right now.”

Therefore, when it comes to tankers bringing in foreign oil along the St. Lawrence River, the answer is yes. When it comes to oil tankers delivering oil from Saudi Arabia to the Irving oil refinery refinery in New Brunswick, the answer is yes. When it comes to continuing operations on offshore oil rigs off the coast of Newfoundland, the answer is yes, but of course not in northern offshore areas near the Northwest Territories, which the Liberals banned against the will of the premier. However, when it comes to opportunities to expand market access, create well-paying jobs for all Canadians, and millions of dollars in economic opportunity for indigenous communities, the answer from the Liberals is no, phase it out.

During a transport committee testimony, first nations were given only 30 minutes to share their opposition to the tanker ban, and spoke of their investment in the Eagle Spirit pipeline project, a $17 billion indigenous-owned corridor and what had been called “the largest first nations endeavour in the world”, which could secure economic opportunities, social benefits, and reduce poverty for at least 35 first nations for generations to come. Bill C-48 would undermine the hard work and aspirations of those first nations. It might drive their project into the U.S. too, chasing even more energy investment across the border.

During the committee meeting, which was the only consultation the Liberals offered with directly impacted first nations, Calvin Helin, the chairman and president of Eagle Spirit Energy and a member of the Lax Kw'alaams First Nation, said that the 35 first nations supporting the project, “do not like outsiders, particularly those they view as trust-fund babies coming into the traditional territories they've governed and looked after for over 10,000 years and dictating government policy in their territory.”

Calvin said:

...we set up a chiefs council that represented all of the chiefs from Alberta all the way out to the B.C. coast. They have had a position with a lot of power and control over the environmental aspects and over the project in general, so it was a fairly high hurdle that we sought to meet. They were so satisfied with the environmental model we put forward that they voluntarily voted at their first meeting to support an energy corridor.

The Prime Minister says that the relationship with Canada's indigenous people is the most important to him and that he wants “an opportunity to deliver true, meaningful and lasting reconciliation.” However, his words do not match his actions. This legislation, dictated by the Prime Minister, would block wealth and opportunity for first nations communities.

Gary Alexcee, vice-chair of the Eagle Spirit chiefs council, said:

With no consultation, the B.C. first nations groups have been cut off economically with no opportunity to even sit down with the government to further negotiate Bill C-48. If that's going to be passed, then I would say we might as well throw up our hands and let the government come and put blankets on us that are infected with smallpox so we can go away. That's what this bill means to us....Today, the way it sits, we have nothing but handouts that are not even enough to have the future growth of first nations in our communities of British Columbia.

Less than a month after the last election, the Prime Minister directed ministers to work toward this tanker ban. However, the Prime Minister also said that his Liberals would “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest...”. How does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe that he consulted indigenous communities, industry, and experts with comprehensive assessments of existing environmental and safety records, standards, outcomes, gaps, and comparative analysis of marine traffic rules, enforcement and track records on all Canadian coasts and internationally, and thorough local, regional, and national economic impact in less than a single month? It is a sham anyway, targeting docking and loading at ports of Canadian oil, not banning any other vessels of any other kind or from any other countries. Unfortunately, it is a pattern. Because despite all the talk, voter coalitions, politics, and ideology drive the Liberals' predetermined conclusions, not evidence, facts or consultations.

Alarmingly, foreign funds and interests have also influenced this bill. Before the 2015 election, the Oak Foundation, based in Switzerland, gave a $97,000 grant to the West Coast Environmental Law group to campaign for a change in government, with the express purpose of constraining Canadian oil and gas development “through a legislative ban on crude oil tankers on British Columbia’s north coast.”

The West Coast Environmental Law website says:

WCEL aims to establish the conditions under which...opposition parties holding a parliamentary majority work together to enact a legislative tanker ban under a minority government and/or incorporate a ban promise into their manifestos, committing them to act following an election that produces a majority government...

Calvin Helin said:

What the chiefs are starting to see a lot now is that there is a lot of underhanded tactics and where certain people are paid in communities and they are used as spokespersons...Essentially (they are) puppets and props...to kill resource development...

He went on to say that it was outrageous and people should be upset about it, that the chiefs were upset.

Eagle Spirit's indigenous leaders say the tanker ban is the result of a lobby campaign by foreign-financed environmental groups. Notably, some of these groups were also involved in a coordinated opposition to the Pacific Northwest LNG project, which the Lax Kw'alaams First Nation members also supported and welcomed after meeting environmental assurances and getting more information, another project that was killed under the government's watch.

The port of the project was to go straight into their traditional territory. Their community has a municipal-like government whose leaders are elected, while their original tribes are represented by the Lax Kw'alaams Hereditary Chiefs' Council.

Calvin Helin wrote:

It turns out the Seattle-based Wilberforce Foundation financially supported a local environmental extremist who posed as a hereditary Chief of the Gitwilgyoots tribe.

The Nine Tribes publicly clarified the misrepresentation in May 2016. It was later settled in court.

Calvin Helin went on:

The rightful hereditary leadership who had been governing their territory for over ten thousand years were shocked that an outside environmental organization would seek to essentially overthrow their ancient leadership structure....

Another quote:

Wilberforce, the California-based Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Hawaii-based Sustainable Fisheries Partnership and others have poured money into anti-LNG campaigns in B.C., as they funded opposition to oilsands development before them. Indeed, the record suggests the long project to establish...the Great Bear Rainforest was a strategy to stop hydrocarbon exports from western Canada, even as U.S. sources ramped up production.

One of the same groups involved in the anti-LNG campaign pushed the Liberals' tanker ban and opposition to the proposed Eagle Spirit project while claiming to be representatives of the Lax Kw'alaams.

In September 2016 the chiefs' council said:

[it] does not sanction inviting professional protestors from non-governmental organizations, and non-Lax Kw'alaams First Nations members into their traditional lands in breach of ancient tribal protocols. Conversely, the Nine Tribes of Lax Kw'alaams would never go into another First Nation's territory without first obtaining their permission. The unauthorized action by this renegade group has created needless confusion, damages tribal unity, and is insulting to tribal members.

However, here is the point: when the Liberals, along with the NDP and green activists, propose legislation like Bill C-48 to appease those groups, they undermine the will of first nations and their elected leadership. They talk of consultation and reconciliation, but their attack on economic opportunities and their failure to consult and listen to directly impacted indigenous people are the height of hypocrisy. Mayor John Helin, Calvin's brother, is forced to spend time and resources fighting this coalition and Bill C-48 in court.

It is stunning to hear Canadian politicians speak of the poverty and socio-economic challenges experienced disproportionately by indigenous Canadians while deliberately using every possible means to block financial opportunities for them and to undermine all their efforts to secure agreements to benefit communities, their youth, and their future.

Five hundred of the 630 first nations in Canada are open to pipelines and to oil and gas development. For example, Fort McKay, near the Athabasca oil sands, has an unemployment rate of zero and financial holdings in excess of $2 billion.

There are 327 indigenous-owned enterprises in Alberta alone that do business with oil and gas operations. Oil sands businesses have conducted more than $10 billion of business with first nations-owned companies.

Chief Jim Boucher of the Fort McKay First Nation says:

We have a different view of the oil sands industry than other people who are not close to our neighbourhood. A lot of people are making judgment calls in regards to what they see and hear from environmental groups, which is really contrary to what we believe and what we see in our region.

Responsible oil sands development is a key driver of Alberta's and Canada's economies and creates employment. Even as recently as 2014, nine out of every 10 new full-time jobs created in Canada were created in Alberta, bringing tax revenue for all levels of government to support the social programs and capital infrastructure projects on which everyone depends.

However, Alberta continues to face obstacles to move oil to markets, hostage to the myth that a broad-based carbon tax on everything will buy support for pipelines. Instead, it will disproportionately harm the economy and make it harder for vulnerable, low-income, working poor Canadians everywhere,

This narrative is especially toxic because Alberta was actually the first jurisdiction in all of North America to regulate and report emissions, to set targets for reduction across all sectors, and to implement a targeted carbon levy on major industrial emitters. That was more than a decade ago.

Oil sands developers and workers have led the world in improving sustainable production, enhancing energy efficiency, and minimizing the footprint of development, ensuring air, water, land, and habitat stewardship while working towards complete reclamation. The oil sands are a long-term strategic asset that any country in the world would want to have and that any other national leader would value and promote.

The oil sands are all about innovation. Without new technologies, Alberta would still be sitting on a hydrocarbon resource with no economic value. That is true of the energy sector overall: it is always innovating, adapting, advancing.

In the 1970s an Imperial Oil engineer, Roger Butler, invented a thermal recovery process called steam-assisted gravity drainage. Around roughly the same time, the Alberta government established the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority to focus on developing Alberta oil sands that were too deep to mine, which is the vast majority of the resource.

In 1996, the first commercial SAGD project was built at Foster Creek. It went into production six years later. The federal Liberal and provincial Progressive Conservative governments worked together to put in place fiscal and regulatory conditions to unlock this incredible resource.

Securities regulators took notice that deep-lying bitumen could now be recoverable. In 2002, when the Houston-based Oil & Gas Journal released its authoritative estimates of global petroleum reserves, it raised Canada's total proven oil reserves nearly fortyfold, from 4.9 billion barrels to 180 billion barrels. Major authorities followed suit over the next few years.

Alberta is blessed with abundant, accessible, affordable resources, and responsible development is an opportunity for all Canadians, benefiting every community, reducing poverty, and sustaining middle-class jobs. Producing from the oil sands is a technological, innovative, and relatively recent and unique achievement from a private, public, academic, and indigenous partnership of which all Canadians should be very proud.

The Liberals should champion Alberta's oil sands and not phase them out. However, Bill C-48 is a clear attack on the oil sands, on pipelines, on Canadian crude oil, on the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who depend on its success, and it limits Canada's role in the world. I urge all members to vote against the tanker ban.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's passion, her intervention, and the knowledge that she brings to this debate.

The member talked about what has been done to improve efficiency in technology in the oil sands, but right now the world faces the fact that we are burning carbon at an alarming rate, and it is a huge problem. Global scientists have told us that one of the largest problems, if not the largest problem, that humanity faces on the planet is to reverse this trend.

We are at over 400 parts per million and are quickly approaching a two-degree rise in global average temperature. What is the Conservative plan to deal with and reverse this trend while they are still promoting the use of fossil fuels?

Mr. Speaker, Canadian energy remains the most affordable, abundant, and available source of energy for our domestic use and for the world. Stopping Canada from being able to export its crude oil does not protect the environment globally. In fact, all it does is cede the market to other oil and gas-producing jurisdictions that are ramping up aggressively and have nowhere near the same standards as Canada.

This debate about the oil tanker ban should concern members of the NDP, the Greens, and the left-wing voters that the Liberals are trying to pander to in order to secure their vote. The hypocrisy and emptiness of this proposed legislation is shocking, since it would not enforce the voluntary exclusion zone already in the area.

With this proposed bill, the Liberals create a scenario in which they would stop pipelines and stop the oil sands and stop Canadian oil tankers from being in the area while American and foreign tankers of all kinds, all sizes, and with all products would still be the area. Therefore, the NDP should be opposing this proposed legislation, since it would not do anything that the Liberals are claiming it would do but exists just in order to keep NDP voters so that they will win in British Columbia again.

Mr. Speaker, Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom of the Woodland Cree First Nation opposes the tanker ban and is one of the representatives of the 35 communities all along the route, every single one of which supports the Eagle Spirit pipeline as a new energy corridor. He says:

I'm 100% an environmentalist as well, but I'm also 100% into the economy so that I can provide purpose and get people to work. This tanker ban is not just going to hurt us at the moment, which it is doing, but it's going to hurt future generations. I have four daughters at home, and I want to provide a better education for them. I can't do that on social assistance.

Bill C-48 would hurt these first nations and would stop Canadian oil, which is extracted, transported, and produced under the safest and most environmentally rigorous standards of any oil and gas-producing jurisdiction on earth. That is what the Liberals would be stopping with this tanker ban. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Lakeland, my fellow Albertan, for doing a fantastic job in her role as a shadow cabinet minister on the energy file.

For 10 years, when I was a member of the former governing party, I would watch as the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens continued to pander to, and try to get the votes from, anybody who was opposed to energy projects. Now that the Liberals are in government, they have found out that it is a lot harder to get these things done if they have to be dishonest with the people they made promises to. They like to couch everything in saying that in the 10 years Stephen Harper was prime minister, he did not get any pipelines built.

How many kilometres of pipeline did Stephen Harper actually cancel, and how many kilometres of pipeline has the current Liberal Prime Minister cancelled?

Mr. Speaker, in fact, pipeline capacity in Canada was tripled under the previous Conservative government, while under the Liberals almost 7,000 kilometres of pipeline has been killed by their policies and their attack on Canadian energy. They have already killed more pipelines than were actually constructed and operating under the previous government.

To the point about the government's crass alliance with anti-energy activists and all-for-votes political pandering, I am going to read a declaration from the nine tribes of Lax Kw'alaams, who collectively declare the following:

We have unextinguished Aboriginal rights and title from time immemorial and continuing into the present within the land and ocean of our traditional territories…;

We have protected the environment as first-stewards of our traditional territories for over 13,000 years;

We have and will always, put the protection of the environment first, but this must be holistically balanced with community, social, employment, business and other priorities;

We absolutely do not support big American environmental NGO’s (who make their money from opposing natural resource projects) dictating government policy and resource developments within our traditional territories.... [S]uch foreign interference serves only to perpetuate the rampant poverty and dysfunction encouraged by previous colonial policies—

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of Canadians, certainly the vast majority of the constituents I am blessed to represent, no longer really believe a word the Liberals say, especially about energy and environmental protection. That is the reason why nobody on the left supports them on the Trans Mountain expansion, for example. None of the Conservatives, who wholeheartedly agree that the approval of the pipeline is in the national interest, believes their words either.

The Liberals also got elected talking about basing their decisions on evidence, consultation, science, facts, and particularly consultation with indigenous people. They constantly claim that this is the most important relationship to them.

What do they not understand about the fact that their tanker ban would actively undermine the opportunities, the will, the decisions, the aspirations, and the hard work of 35 indigenous communities from Alberta to British Columbia, and that it would do damage to Canadian future prosperity that benefits all of Canada, every single resident in every province, right across all sectors? That is what the Liberals are actually doing here. They can go on and on about the things they believe, they promised, and they said they were going to do, but nobody believes them anymore at all. They deserve it. They created that mess.

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak to this bill at report stage on Monday, and I made the comment that the Conservatives will not participate in the fantasy that this bill has anything to do with transportation. We know that this is a moratorium on a pipeline and on resource development, which is precisely why my colleague from Lakeland, who is our shadow minister for natural resources, has been given the lead on this particular file. I think she has done a tremendous job in terms of bringing forward all the issues that surround this tanker ban.

I also want to thank her for the opportunity to attend a press conference that she held today with Mayor Helin from Lax Kw'alaams. I would like to give her an opportunity to tell us what the purpose of that press conference was.

Mr. Speaker, Mayor Helin feels that his community, his leadership, and the elected leaders there are being drowned out by the anti-energy activists alliance. He and his community were not consulted on the tanker ban, but that is the community that will be most directly impacted by it. He is moving forward, having to fight on behalf of the best interests and aspirations of his community, to challenge the government, because he says that it has violated the community's rights and title to make decisions on its traditional territory. That is the same community that supported and welcomed the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, which was later cancelled. It is also being blocked by the Liberal government from being able to diversify its fisheries.

The community members oppose the tanker ban. They are doing everything they can to be heard. They had one meeting with the Liberals and were told that there is no flexibility on it. This tanker ban was dictated by the Prime Minister within one month after the 2015 election. The mayor was here to speak on behalf of the people he represents, and Canadians cannot be grateful enough for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-48 on an oil tanker ban on British Columbia's north coast. Canada's New Democrats are pleased that the Liberal government is finally taking action to protect the north coast of British Columbia from crude oil tanker traffic. However, we are concerned that Bill C-48 would give the minister too much arbitrary power to exempt vessels from the ban or to define what fuels would be covered under the act. We hope the government will implement constructive amendments to limit ministerial power and increase spill response resources. We are certainly concerned about the lack of consultation with first nation and other coastal communities.

I want to talk about my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and the work he did in his riding on the northwest coast with regard to this oil tanker ban. He consulted with many people in communities and first nations. He worked with them and listened to their concerns. What they told him, over many years, was that one oil spill could ruin their way of life. That way of life depends on the ocean: on salmon, on halibut, on shellfish, on a healthy, clean ocean. What he heard was that the risks were too great. They were just not worth it.

Patrick Kelly, chair of the board of Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative, wrote an opinion piece called “Opinion: Coastal First Nations affirm support for oil tanker ban on north coast”, which was published February 11, 2018. It reads:

The ocean is an integral part of our coastal First Nations cultures, societies and economy. An oil spill in our territorial waters, which includes all of the North and Central coast and Haida Gwaii, would be catastrophic.

We understand that large-vessel shipping is essential for our modern economy. Fossil fuel use is a reality we must deal with as we transition to a clean energy future. But we already know that the question is no longer “if” there’s going to be an oil spill, it has already happened. There is no “world class” oil spill clean-up system that will work on the coast. It simply does not exist.

The Heiltsuk Nation still has not recovered from the Nathan E. Stewart diesel spill. It may be years before their waters, clam beds and other marine resources are healthy again. The Haida also experienced a near disaster in October 2014 when a 135-metre bulk carrier, the Simushir, lost power in storm-force winds in their territories. The Gitga’at have been impacted by two spills, the MV Zalinski which was carrying Bunker C [fuel] when it sank and the B.C. Ferry, Queen of the North, which sank in 2006. Despite government promises of clean-up, both wreckages still leak fuel.

Our identities and culture will cease to exist if the fish, animals, plants, medicines, creatures and birds are compromised. Our way of living and livelihoods has already been severely impacted because of past industrial and commercial unsustainable practices. One example is the decline of fish and fisheries on the coast.

Historically, our leaders managed our territories and resources to meet our community needs. Wealth and surpluses were generated when times were good, and this enabled trade and inter-tribal commerce. Governing also meant enforcement of Indigenous laws and protection of lands, seas and resources. We are guided by our potlatched hereditary leaders and elders who have taught us how to balance the economic needs of our people and the need to respect our lands, cultures and environment. They have told us that oil tankers are too risky to our existence and therefore must be kept out of our territories. Consultation has been provided through the clear leadership of the CFN communities.

As chiefs and leaders we have a responsibility to leave future generations with a healthy environment and a sustainable economy. This is why we are working with the federal government to develop a fisheries industry that will benefit our communities. It is why we are working with the B.C. government to develop new clean energy strategies which includes First Nations from the outset.

CFN, through its Carbon Credit Corp., is now the largest carbon credit seller in Canada and revenues generated from sales are re-invested by each nation to further protect their lands and resources. Collectively, our nations have trained and now employ over 100 stewardship staff and guardians.

Our people and communities need jobs and revenue, and we know that the traditional resource sectors alone will not meet growth demands of our nations so we are open to new developments. But new resource or industrial developments must never compromise our natural environment. There is no place for oil tankers on our coast. As Indigenous people who have lived in our territories for more than 14,000 years, as British Columbians, and as Canadians, we have a collective responsibility to protect our lands, waters and resources.

The tanker moratorium is good and necessary public policy.

That is a powerful letter, and a powerful statement, and I am glad to have read that into the record.

I got into politics to defend our west coast way of life; the incredible biodiversity we enjoy in the province of British Columbia; the rivers, the lakes, the forests, the mountains, the oceans, the wildlife; and the communities and economies that have developed as a result of that abundance. However, the way we are living now is impacting that abundance and biodiversity. We have species at risk, threatened and endangered, whether it is salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, caribou, or many other species that are SARA listed.

These are real issues, and they are not easy problems to fix, but there needs to be political will to address these problems and to do things differently. We must find ways to live within our means and move to a low-carbon economy, and we need to do that in a just way. We need a just transition to a sustainable way of living.

This is what motivated me to swim the 1,400 kilometre length of the Fraser River, one of the greatest salmon rivers on the planet. The northern gateway Enbridge pipeline project would have crossed hundreds of rivers and streams, going through salmon and fish-bearing rivers and creeks and crossing very steep slopes and mountainous valleys right through the northern part of the Fraser River basin. I was so passionate about bringing my message of sustainability, I swam for three weeks in icy cold water from Mount Robson, in the Fraser's headwaters, to Prince George, down through the Fraser canyon, past Hope, and west past my home community of Coquitlam to the river's mouth, Musqueam territory, in Vancouver, near the Salish Sea.

This was the hardest thing I had ever done in my life, swimming for three weeks in that cold water, but it taught me one thing. It taught me to be resolute, and I committed that I would do everything in my power to encourage people to transition to a sustainable way of living, which includes transitioning in a just and fair way to a low-carbon economy, shifting away from oil and gas and toward renewable forms of energy.

The reasons are clear. The science is overwhelming. The world is burning so much carbon from oil, coal, and gas that we are changing the climate. We have now passed 400 parts per million, a historic high. We are well on our way to an average warming of 2o C, which global scientists warn us will have a dramatic impact on human civilization, our economies, our communities, and all others we share this planet with. That is not just in the future. That is happening now, and we are seeing it in the form of floods, fires, and impacts on our planet.

This means that sometimes we have to say no. We need to say no to things that we know will harm us. This is one of those times. Banning oil tanker traffic off B.C.'s north coast is the right thing to do.

Another one of those times is the Kinder Morgan pipeline project which, if built, is planned to bring a 700% increase in oil tanker traffic to the Vancouver port in Burrard Inlet. For the past two years, my colleague, the member for Burnaby South, has been working hard to raise awareness about the detrimental impacts of that Kinder Morgan project, how the risks far outweigh the benefits of this proposal. He knows, like I do, it is times like these that we must take a strong and principled stand on projects that will not bring prosperity to the country that we love and that we know is full of promise. Worse, it will have a detrimental impact on the existing way of life and on future generations.

I am very disappointed the government is sticking to its decision to move ahead with the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline. This pipeline would triple the amount of tar sands oil being moved to the coast of British Columbia where it will be loaded onto oil tankers and headed out to sea and directly through critical habitat of the endangered southern resident orca, and other marine life. Not only does this significantly increase human caused noise and ship strikes, but it also increases the risk of catastrophic oil spills in southern resident orca habitat, which would be devastating for this endangered iconic species and the entire ecosystem of the Salish Sea.

The government tells us not to worry, that it has everything covered with its so-called oceans protection plan. The problem is the government has no marine mammal response plan for an oil spill. As I and others have said many times in the House, the tankers would be carrying diluted bitumen and there is no technology in place today to clean it up. It simply does not exist. On top of that, the rugged B.C. coastline and often challenging weather conditions can make response efforts extremely difficult.

The government's record and its ability to respond to emergency incidents have been causing many on the B.C. coast concern. Response to the 2015 Marathassa spill in Vancouver's English Bay and the 2016 Nathan B. Stewart spill near Bella Bella proved that Canada's response plan is completely lacking. The government keeps making funding announcements for the oceans protection plan, but all the money in the world will not change the fact that the impact of an oil spill on B.C.'s rugged coast would be devastating.

I want to conclude my remarks by referring to DeSmog's summary of what it wants Canadians to know about Bill C-48.

One, DeSmog indicates that a tanker ban will not ban supertankers of refined oil from the coast. While the proposed legislation does prevent supertankers of crude oil and similar hydrocarbon products from moving in and out of northern ports in large quantities, it does not prevent refined oil products from doing the same. This leaves the door open for future major oil refinery projects on B.C.'s north coast. There are two proposed refineries, one in Kitimat called Kitimat Clean, which would refine 400,000 barrels of oil per day, and the Pacific Future Energy refinery project, which would refine 200,000 barrels per day. Those are the projected refinery amounts.

Two, DeSmog is very concerned that tankers carrying 12,500 tonnes or less of oil are excluded from this ban. This is a huge amount of oil. Once passed, the bill would only prevent vessels carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of crude oil from stopping at coastal ports. This is a big concern to its readers.

Three, DeSmog indicates that the tanker ban would not prevent another Nathan E. Stewart incident from happening. The tanker ban was first announced by the federal government after the Minister of Transport travelled to the Heiltsuk territory to witness a diesel spill from the Nathan E. Stewart, a sunken fuel barge. This spill had a devastating impact on the local fishery and shellfish fishery.

Jess Housty, a tribal councillor from the Heiltsuk First Nation said that the tanker ban “changes nothing”. She is adamantly concerned about tanker traffic and the types of products that will be transported off the north coast of where she calls home.

Fourth, DeSmog indicates that the south coast of B.C. near Vancouver and Victoria is still not protected. DeSmog is concerned that this tanker ban would not impact tanker traffic off B.C.'s south coast near the terminus of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline in the Burnaby-Vancouver port.

The fifth concern that DeSmog would like to bring to the attention of all Canadians is that the details of the banned fuels are subject to change. I talked about ministerial discretion. There is a concern that the tanker ban will prevent the movement of large amounts of crude oil from traversing coastal waters in B.C. and the ban will also cover heavy hydrocarbons known as persistent oils in the schedule. DeSmog is concerned that there are many other types of deleterious substances that will be transported which could have an impact on the coastal way of life.

This is a huge concern to many coastal communities, first nations, and others on Canada's west coast. It is a growing concern to many throughout this great country.

This is a good first step to ban oil tanker traffic off the north coast, but we still have a way to go to deal with the impacts of a changing climate, the impact of losing species at an alarming rate, and transitioning in a just and fair way toward a sustainable way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for his passion on this file. I serve with him on the fisheries committee and I know how dedicated he claims to be toward saving salmon, and so on.

I will not say that he is purposely misleading the House, but I would like to point out a few things.

He talked about a 700-fold increase in tankers. That is a manufactured percentage. He is not taking into account the number of tankers that are actually coming into Canadian ports, bringing foreign oil into the same area that he wants to block the Kinder Morgan pipeline from accessing.

The member also mentioned his swims down the Fraser River. That is a great athletic feat. He also remarked about the pipeline traversing those same areas. While he was swimming down that river, did he happen to count the number of railcars going by on the railway line right beside the Fraser River? They go through the same area. They go through my riding, past the Shuswap, down the Thompson River, down the Illecillewaet that flows into the Columbia system. All of those railcars that he should have counted as they rolled by create more of a risk than any pipeline ever would.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague shares my passion about salmon and other wildlife. I know his work at the B.C. Wildlife Federation before he became involved in politics was impressive and is welcome in the House.

I do want to correct him on what he thought I said. I mentioned a sevenfold increase, not a 700-fold increase. It was a 700% increase, which means a sevenfold increase. I want to correct him on another thing. I said oil tanker traffic, not just tanker traffic. That is certainly an increase.

People are essentially saying that they do not feel that the risk is worth it on the west cost. They are not willing to take that risk.

I did have an opportunity to count the crossings as I swam the 1,400 kilometre river. I did see a lot of crossings and I certainly did think about many things. I thought mainly about the passion of why I was doing that swim. There are so many others in British Columbia and all across the country who share the passion I have for this incredible way of life, this biodiversity that we share on the west coast. People on the west coast want to see it remain, as do I, and that is going to be a challenge for the future.

Joyce MurrayLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for all of his work to protect salmon and salmon habitat, and also for his work to protect the north coast from tanker traffic through an initiative a number of years ago when he was first a member of Parliament.

Earlier in the debate, a Conservative member asked why, when there are so many more tankers on the east coast, there does not appear to be the same kind of concern about the risk there that we have on the west coast. He wondered why we would be concerned on the west coast. What is the difference? I thought I might ask the member if he could share his thoughts about what is unique about our Pacific north coast compared to other areas of Canada and other Canadian coastlines.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has been on the fisheries committee in past Parliaments. I know the work she does privately to restore our forests in British Columbia. I know her past work as a provincial minister. Therefore, I appreciate her question and her interest. I think she brings up a good point about the difference between the two coasts.

What is so incredibly magnificent about the west coast is we enjoy an abundance of biodiversity, both marine and terrestrial. We have whales. Some are threatened, such as the resident whales, but we have seen the recovery of some other species of whales. We have salmon and halibut. We have an incredible variety of species of fish and shellfish that are in abundance from the south coast up to the north coast. It is what has developed our local economies. There have been 10,000 to 15,000 years of development of these economies by our first peoples. They tell us about how they have lived off of these resources, the products of the ocean, for thousands and thousands of years. There are so many today in coastal fishing communities who rely on this abundance. They want to see these resources protected. That is why they are so passionate, as am I, about protecting, preserving, and conserving these resources.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his speech, his intense passion for the environment, as well his commitment in this crusade to bring awareness to the significance of the challenges we face. Honestly, I did not know that he engaged in the athleticism it takes to spend three weeks in cold water. I congratulate him. I am impressed at his unwavering convictions. I think he does a great job representing the people of his riding for whom these issues are crucial and vital.

In the House, we are having a societal debate and he is right to say that we have run out of choices, we have to identify what is hurting our planet. Obviously this is awful for a province whose economic growth is tied to developing its fossil fuels.

I would like to know whether my colleague believes that it would be a good idea to devote some energy to the task of looking into other job prospects for workers in the oil sands sector.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are at a crossroads. I am glad he learned of the story of my three-week swim down the Fraser, which was a life-changing event for me. I have done that twice. I did it in 1995 and again in 2000. The only effect that I have suffered as a result of that is I got into politics, which I feel passionate about.

His question about the world and the country being at a crossroads in our energy use is critical, and we must shift. Our science, information, and local knowledge are all converging and telling us that we have to shift now, that we are beyond the point of knowing that we cannot avoid this shift and that we have to make it. It is not a future issue; it is now. We have to look at developing, supporting, and turning to a just transition in renewables, moving to geothermal, solar, wind, and hydro. We need to invest in these projects.

We need to work with municipalities, provinces, territories, and with working people to make the transition. We need to have jobs and work. We need them to make our communities and economies thrive. We also need to have a planet that is livable and sustainable, one that we can pass on and feel proud, as a society and national government, that we did the most we could to pass on a sustainable way of living.

That is why Bill C-48 is a move in the right direction. We need to make an even greater move in the direction of a sustainable way of living, support it, invest in it, and make the needed transition happen today.

Joyce MurrayLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak today about the importance of B.C.'s north coast and why we are seeking to protect it with Bill C-48.

The area targeted by the tanker moratorium goes from the southern border of Alaska to the tip of continental British Columbia, to the north end of Vancouver Island, and it includes Haida Gwaii.

I will begin by reading from a document written eight years ago:

[This bill] legislates a crude oil tanker ban in the dangerous inland waters around Haida Gwaii known as Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. It will protect our oceans and communities from the risk of a major oil spill and promote a sustainable economy – one that supports B.C.’s growing fisheries and tourism sectors.

[This] bill responds to the clear voices of British Columbians, [the majority]...of whom support a permanent tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast. First Nations, B.C. municipalities and thousands of businesses whose growth and sustainability depend on a healthy ocean and coastal ecosystem are united in their call for a permanent ban.

To be clear, [this bill] does not apply to natural gas products and will not affect existing deliveries of condensate into Kitimat, B.C. It will not prevent the continued transport of diesel and other oil products to local B.C. communities or in any way affect current or future shipments of oil to Asia and the United States through the Port of Vancouver. The bill does not limit growth in exports of Canadian crude to expanding international markets. And finally, it allocates no new ministerial ability to close other shipping areas in Canada, as these powers already exist under the Canada Shipping Act.

[The bill] does acknowledge that Canadians want communities and wildlife protected and [they want] prosperity. This can be achieved by making smart choices about where and how development takes place.

We have witnessed the environmental, economic and social devastation caused by the Exxon Valdez and BP catastrophes [in the Gulf of Mexico]. One major spill along B.C.’s shorelines would threaten fragile ecosystems, endanger wildlife, harm lives and communities, and jeopardize many of our...[tens of thousands of] coastal jobs. It is simply not worth the risk.

I am reading from a letter that was written to my colleagues when I tabled Bill C-606 back in 2010. Today, I am so grateful and appreciative to our Minister of Transport for having tabled this bill, Bill C-48, which would do exactly what I called for with my bill, Bill C-606.

I had a chance to visit 15 communities up and down our coast, hosting events to hear from community members, including the chambers of commerce, indigenous people, and citizens. There was an overwhelming consensus that the Pacific north coast was a very important internationally-significant area that we must protect and defend from the risk of a major oil spill.

I spoke with individuals who showed me pictures of themselves wearing gumboots as they cleaned up oil from sea life and shorelines up in Prince William Sound in Alaska after the Exxon Valdez spill of 10.8 million U.S. gallons of oil back in 1989. Some of those ecosystems have never recovered from that spill, and it affects the economy and ecology of those areas today. I certainly understood the concern the people in the north coast had.

I will explain why that area is so unique, actually risky, and why in my letter I talked about this risk British Columbians did not believe was worth it with respect to the benefits to our province.

I want to give credit to the environmental advocacy groups that raised awareness about the risk of oil tanker traffic and spills in our north coast related to a pipeline that was proposed for the area. It has since been determined not permissible by our government. I want to also thank our Prime Minister for recognizing that our Pacific north coast is not the right route for pipelines and oil tankers.

I was privileged to successfully ensure that the ban on oil traffic in the Pacific north coast was included in two Liberal platforms, one in 2011 and one in 2015: promise made, promise kept.

The marine ecosystems that span the northern coast of British Columbia are unique. The coastline itself with its rugged cliffs and inlets provides an abundant environment for its ecologically rich and diverse animal populations. It is dotted with thousands of islands and etched with deep fjords. The coastal rainforests are places of stunning biological prosperity and diversity, and an environment that deserves protection.

Not only is the north coast geographically complex, it also supports a wide range of distinct marine ecosystems. These ecosystems provide spawning and schooling areas for fish, and is important for a variety of sea birds, marine mammals, and other marine fauna, like humpback and killer whales, and that says nothing about the region's rich flora.

I had a chance to travel in this area as the environment minister for the province of British Columbia. I spent a week on a B.C. Park's boat touring the isolated inlets and shorelines as we sought to discuss with local indigenous peoples the possibility of creating a provincial park and reserve in the Great Bear Rainforest. I had a chance to see just how little human impact there had been on that part of our coast and how it really was a virgin ecosystem, which is expressed in the rich variety of the ecosystem I spoke about.

It was not just the marine areas that were so important to protect, but also the area on land, which a pipeline was proposing to traverse. The pipeline would have crossed hundreds of fish and salmon-bearing streams. It would have crossed wilderness, mountain, and valley areas with virgin forests and ecosystems, which are almost impossible to even hike through as they are so remote and uncivilized, and I say that in the technical sense. So few people live there in such vast areas that are uneroded. It is very important for grizzly bears and other wildlife to live without the impacts of human civilization, which have caused challenges to their abundance in other parts of our province and country.

In the northern coastal area, salmon still runs in the rivers, trees hundreds of years old loom over vast landscapes, and predators and prey keep the delicate balance necessary for these ecosystems to thrive. Our government is committed to ensure that this coast remains a vibrant ecosystem for generations to come. Ecotourism in this area is growing year by year as people from around the world recognize how internationally unique the area is.

The government recognizes that indigenous groups have inhabited the north coast for millennia and continue to rely on its bountiful ecosystems as foundations for their cultures and economies. As I travelled around Haida Gwaii and Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve in a sailboard a few years ago, I spoke to many indigenous people from Haida Gwaii. They were completely and utterly determined that their precious area would not be subject to the risk of a major oil spill by oil tanker traffic. Therefore, this moratorium is very important to those members of the Haida Gwaii community.

Bill C-48 is a significant step being taken by our government to enhance environmental protection for this pristine and important coastline.

The minister also travelled from coast to coast to coast to hear from people about this particular project. From Haida Gwaii to Iqaluit and St. John's, he wanted to hear their perspectives on the oil tanker moratorium and improving marine safety.

Our government has met with stakeholders, non-governmental organizations, other levels of government, and indigenous groups to listen and gather input. I have to recognize that the Minister of Transport has done a full and deep job of consulting with people across the country. As the proponent of Bill C-606 in 2010, which was up for debate in March 2011, I was not able to do quite that thorough a job of consulting, but certainly the majority of people I spoke with felt that this was an important initiative. The minister heard a diversity of views, and the importance of these environmental protections was made abundantly clear.

Coastal communities and industries everywhere in Canada understand the importance of healthy ecosystems to protect the way of life and livelihoods of those areas. In fact, there is a wide range of economic activity that feeds and sustains the Pacific north coast region's economic life cycle. For over a hundred years, we have had logging, mining, fisheries, and canning and processing facilities. Those activities have been important and have supported many communities along the coast.

I want to acknowledge that the Province of British Columbia has really worked hard to consult with stakeholders from environmental groups, communities, indigenous communities, and industy to make sure that its land use planning process reflects where there should be more intensive use of the land and waters, and where there should be more protection of the land and waters. That balance has been found in our province. It can always be improved, but there has been a great deal of emphasis on proper management of the lands and waters in British Columbia since the 1990s, including the government I was part of in the early 2000s.

It is not something our government takes lightly, to ensure that a particular activity, such as a pipeline or oil tanker traffic, will not be permitted there. The jobs that would have been created, I would point out, were not an enormous number. The building of the pipeline would have created some jobs for sure, but once it was built, the number of ongoing jobs would have been far less.

The moratorium would protect the livelihoods of communities on British Columbia's north coast by providing a heightened level of environmental protection, while continuing to allow for community and industry resupply by small tanker, which was an important part of the bill I proposed as well, Bill C-606. We know that these communities and the industry rely on marine shipments of critical petroleum products to sustain their livelihoods. That is why our government will continue to allow shipments of crude or persistent oil products below a certain level, which is 12,500 metric tons.

The moratorium would protect the northern coastline, that whole area and its delicate ecosystems, including Haida Gwaii, from accidents that could upset this fragile region via a major oil spill.

We know that the vast majority of citizens in this area do not believe the risk of that kind of major spill, which we have seen before on our west coast, is worth it. We understand that should something like this happen, our coast would never be the same. On the north coast, there are far fewer services to prevent a spill, to act quickly if a major oil tanker were in difficulty, and to prevent the damage.

This tanker moratorium does not tell the whole story of our protection of the coast and the precautionary approach that we are building in to help safeguard the marine environment in this region. I want to mention the oceans protection plan, which adds another set of protections. The oceans protection plan is a $1.5-billion initiative on which there was wide consultation. I know many members of the Pacific caucus, the B.C. members of Parliament, were asked to provide input into what should be in the oceans protection plan.

It will improve our incident prevention and response regime and address environmental concerns in the event of a marine accident. The oceans protection plan will lift the liability cap for defraying the costs of cleanup, should there be a spill, to unlimited liability. I am referring now to smaller ships. My colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam read into the record some concerns about the smaller ships that were underneath the cap. There would be unlimited liability and the government would implement a levy on oil shipments to fund compensation, as well as to speed it up, so communities would not be not stuck footing the bill for the cleanup of smaller spills.

In the bill, we recognize that when the delicate balance of this coastline becomes threatened, it upsets relationships between the environment and its inhabitants. It is not just about today's coastal communities. It is also about inhabitants that have spanned thousands of years. The Musqueam first nation, for example, which is on a different part of the coast, the south coast, has a record of habitation and its traditional areas for over 4,000 years. We know there are deep historical and cultural ties to the Pacific north coast that support cultural practices and social structures, and that is also what makes this area worth protecting.

Clearly, the oil tanker moratorium is just one of many initiatives in our comprehensive plan to protect the marine environment, to begin restoring some of the species that have been impacted by human activities over the years, and changes to our oceans, like acidification and warming from climate change, and the warming of streams that are necessary for our salmon cycle. There is so much work to be done, but this is a key part of it for a key part of our country, which is the Pacific north coast.

I hope we will have the full support of all members present for the passage of this bill, to take this important step in protecting one of the world's most diverse and rich regions anywhere on the planet.

Mr. Speaker, I have many questions for the member, but I will try to keep my comments short. The member might be able to work around some of these questions.

She talked about the ecotourism that is building in the areas where the pipelines may go through. How do the international ecotourists get there from other countries, from foreign lands? Surely they do not row a boat or pedal a bike. How does the fuel get to the planes that get them there? It is from other countries that produce oil with less environmental safeguards than we have here in Canada, but the Liberals are going to restrict Canadian oil from getting into those planes to get those ecotourists here.

The member did not talk about it, but the Liberal government has said that the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion will be built. It is interesting to see the member try to work around that, and yet say that another pipeline that would serve another portion of the country with greater economic benefits for that portion of the country, and a portion of her province and my province, is being basically punished for where they are. How can the member explain her way out of that conundrum?

Mr. Speaker, I welcome questions about this initiative which, as I have said, I was proud to champion starting in 2009, travelling up the coast and to coastal communities to hear from people and understand how important it is to have this oil tanker moratorium in that area.

Tourists get there by arriving in a number of ways. Cruise ships stop in Prince Rupert. People can bike from Prince George to Prince Rupert, if they choose. There are many ways. Prince Rupert has an airport, and yes, communities do use oil products and will for many decades to come. However, that is not an excuse for putting a pipeline through an essentially untravelled and unimpacted wilderness area of the northern part of our province and impacting 750 streams that are important for salmon.

It is not a reason to say that this is an area where we are going to have massive supertankers in a geography that is very dangerous in terms of the shoals and the storms. No, we have to choose where it makes sense to move our oil products to market—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra for her long-time advocacy for a ban on the north coast. I want to commend her for that, but I also want to thank her for her description of the sensitive ecosystems that we have in coastal British Columbia and the importance of that for jobs and our economy. The member also cited the spill of the Exxon Valdez in the north coast and how some of the ecosystems still have not survived.

In fact, the Prime Minister said, “Crude oil supertankers just have no place on B.C.'s north coast.” The member talked about that being a promise that the Liberals made, and that they have followed through with that promise. She said that it is a promise made and a promise kept.

Where I have concerns is that with the same ecosystems we have on the south coast, the member supports a pipeline project, Kinder Morgan, that is going to increase supertanker traffic by sevenfold. This was a promise made—the Liberals were going to have a renewed process—and it is a promise broken.

Maybe the member can square with people at home how she can support this project, in light of the fact that we have southern resident killer whales and we have the same ecosystem that will be affected by this project, and what is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the NDP members opposite just cannot take yes to heart as a solution to an important challenge and say that they appreciate it. They need to tie it into other things they would like.

Let us recall the incredible outpouring of concern about the ecosystems of our north coast area with the possibility of having a greenfield pipeline, which means a pipeline that crosses areas that are almost unnavigable or impossible to hike, they are so mountainous, treed, and full of important species that have a refuge in that area. That is just the pipeline route.

The coastal route is one that is extremely concerning in terms of the danger of navigation. There is always the risk of human error. As good as the—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver Quadra, hon. the parliamentary secretary. I completely agree about the hazardous area of the Hecate Strait. From the last time I rose, when talking to the parliamentary secretary for transport, I looked up the reference. Environment Canada's marine weather hazards manual lists the Hecate Strait as one of the fourth most dangerous bodies of water in the world.

However, I have to agree with my friend from Courtenay—Alberni. It is hard to understand. I applaud Bill C-48, but our Salish Sea needs protection. We have no known technology for cleaning up diluted bitumen. I know it is not a Bill C-48 issue, but could we not agree that no new pipeline should go through for Kinder Morgan until we know how to clean up dilbit?

Mr. Speaker, our government has a range of initiatives for the oceans protection plan that are focused on the Salish Sea areas, on the species in those areas, and on doing what has never been done, which is to have steps to recover Chinook salmon, which is food for the southern resident killer whales, and initiatives such as regulating to keep the boats, tourists, and other ship traffic further away from our southern resident killer whales.

The one thing I want to mention is that it is very important that we achieve our Paris targets. We cannot do that without the kinds of measures Alberta has put in place to reduce their planned expansion of the oil sands, including putting a cap on it, increasing their tax, regulating methane, and shutting down coal-fired plants. That is in the national interest. Having Alberta as part of the national plan is in the national interest. Alberta had one requirement for that, and that was access for their oil to Asia.

Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly important topic to people in Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, not because we are on the coastline but because we believe in the importance of the environment. It is not only because of the Oak Ridges Moraine and kettle lakes like Wilcox Lake but because of the environment in this entire great nation, in particular in the Pacific northwest.

I owned a canoe outfitting business in northern Ontario, an eco-tourism business. I understood how united we are as Canadians, as people from all around the world came to enjoy something that many countries do not have to offer.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her comprehensive and clear exposition. I wonder if she could give us the three key reasons, from her expertise and her background, she believes that this is the right bill to support.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost difficult to limit this to three reasons. One is that so much of the world is becoming developed. As populations grow and communities spread into former nature, it becomes ever more important that when there are areas that have not had this happen, we say that this is not an area where we can risk a major oil spill or accept the kind of impacts human habitation and concentrated industrial activity result in. It is internationally recognized as a special wilderness area.

Second, we have the spirit bear in this area. It is a unique variant of the black bear. The area around it is incredibly significant, which is why we have a spirit bear park.

Last, the indigenous coastal peoples around the area of this tanker ban formed a group, Coastal First Nations, and came out solidly in favour of the ban.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on Bill C-48, let me add my voice to those who have spoken before about our colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Gord Brown. Although Gord was a few years younger than me, he became my mentor when I was first elected in 2008. His quiet demeanour, his love for his community, and his respect for this institution, along with his fervent belief as a Conservative that individual rights and freedoms create the strength of our nation, are beliefs that he so passionately championed and ones that this side of the House will continue to champion and hold dear. To his wife Claudine, as well as his two sons, my wife Judy and I offer our sincerest condolences.

The bill we have before us today is the genesis of the demise of our oil and gas industry under the advisement and dictation of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Gerald Butts. It has been said that it is not the puppet that we fear; it is Butts, the puppeteer. It is now obvious that both the puppeteer and the puppet are things Canadians need to fear.

This proposal was developed to ensure that the northern gateway project, although properly vetted, with stringent conditions, would be derailed. This was the goal of eco-activists headed and funded by groups whose goal was to cause havoc in Canada's resource industry to curry favour with international donors, who many say are simply hedging their bets with oil and gas investments in other parts of the world. These groups do not care about the well-being of Canadians. They do not care about our first nation entrepreneurs. They do not care about our commitment to humanitarian causes around the world. They just want to see Canada's natural resources stay in the ground so that their global partners can reap the benefits from such actions.

Whenever we hear from those who want to “phase out” the oil sands, including the current Liberal Prime Minister, we need to know that it will be all Canadians who will suffer from these actions. How can it be in the interest of Canadians to have Venezuelan oil power vehicles in Quebec? How is it better for the environment to have Saudi Arabian oil filling up refineries on the east coast? Why would we want American oil to fuel our machines in Vancouver? None of this makes sense.

If we had a government that recognized the need to diversify our export markets so that the most ethical oil and liquid natural gas on the planet could find its way to the rapidly growing markets of Asia, then maybe we would not be the laughingstock of the world. What other country would do this to its own economy and its own people?

As was mentioned in a November 8, 2017, article in the Financial Post, entitled “How the B.C. tanker moratorium is killing First Nations' enterprise”, Canadians have to be awoken to what the current government is doing and what the consequences of its actions are.

Five years ago, members of the Lax Kw'alaams Band proposed an energy corridor from Fort McMurray to the B.C. coast. The social licence, which has now become some imaginary, elusive target, would have been achieved for all types of future expansion, helping all Canadians, especially first nations people. After consultation, and with broad acceptance, Eagle Spirit Energy came to the table with practical solutions that focused on environmental protection that even exceeded Canada's world-class regulations. What happened after was pure sabotage of a nation-building project, a pattern that has become all too familiar under the current Liberal government.

We should have been aware that this was the Liberals' goal all along, as they have been trying to limit the potential expansion of northern gateway since the project was first proposed a decade ago. The previous attempts by the Liberals, when in opposition, proposed banning tankers sailing within the defined waters of Canada's fishing zone 3, which is from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska panhandle. Bill C-48 would expand this original proposal to prohibit tankers carrying crude oil from entering or leaving ports in the same area. In order to avoid a conflict with the U.S.A., tankers can still carry crude up and down the waters, as long as they do not enter or leave from a Canadian port.

Who does this hurt and who does this benefit? We have stopped our private sector partners from moving ahead with first nation partners to move Canada's natural resources to tidewater. That hurts Canadian taxpayers who could have been building schools, building hospitals, and other needed infrastructure across this land with the profits attained, but they now need to depend on deficits to be paid off by future generations in order to develop those same types of projects.

Who benefits? The foreign funders whose investments flourish around the world as those countries market their crude at world prices to the very markets that we are shut out of. What adds insult to injury is, as I mentioned earlier, that we buy oil from those very same countries to fuel our economy in eastern Canada. However, those same activists and complicit provincial governments that want to shut down or oil going west have also thwarted our efforts to move it to the east.

Is that what makes a nation strong or is that what causes division and scorn? The old Trudeau government only cared about the unity of our country as long as he got his way. What is the difference now?

In November of 2014, the Conservative government introduced and implemented a number of measures to create a world class tanker safety system, including the modernization of Canada's navigation system, enhancing area response planning, building marine safety capacity in aboriginal communities, and ensuring that polluters paid for spills and damages.

The concept of Liberals demonizing Conservative actions, layering them over with red paint and calling them new and improved, is nothing new. This was the game played with regulatory reviews for pipelines. The Liberals used this to argue for Kinder Morgan, but now they stay quiet about how safe this would make all our other waterways because that does not fit their narrative.

In summary, Bill C-48 would do very little for the preservation of British Columbia's environment. Ships, including U.S. tankers, travelling from Alaska to Washington State, will continue to be able to travel up and down the coast just outside the 100 kilometre limit. This is just another slap in the face to resource developers, as it is just another pipeline moratorium under a different name.

There is no recognition, because it does not fit the Prime Minister's “keep it in the ground” narrative, that Canadian oil is extracted and transported under some of the safest and most environmentally strict regulations in the world. Preventing our Canadian resources from reaching customers in other countries only serves to encourage the use of foreign oil products that are extracted and transported in a less safe and less environmentally friendly way.

What is ironic is that the political machinations of both the Liberal government and the NDP, which also hold a negative view and constant vendetta against our oil and gas sector, actually defeats their stated goals of “protecting the global environment”. Their efforts not only cripple our economy and communities, they are also helping to fill the coffers of some of the most unethical and ruthless regimes on the planet. It is the Liberals who insist on creating wedges among Canadians.

The Liberals know that on this issue they are losing ground, and now they are desperate to paint any distractions in the most negative manner. One thing is for sure. The Conservatives will always be the party of freedom, opportunity, security, prosperity, and conservation. We will always stand proud of Canada and the millions of Canadians who work hard every day to make it the best country in the world.

Canadians deserve a government that takes pride in what Canada has to offer. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that will put them first. In 2019, that is exactly what the Conservatives will offer Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's efforts in standing up for Albertans and jobs. I share that view, as much as he may not agree with my perspective. I have family there. We want our brothers and sisters there to thrive and do well.

The member touched on a few things. He certainly touched on Kinder Morgan and this project replacing foreign oil. However, it is my understanding that this oil is for export. It will not be replacing any foreign oil, or dirty oil, if one wants to call it that.

Frankly, we have not had a good, robust conversation about a refinery and the value added, creating more jobs in Canada and more energy security in Canada while we fund transition, like Norway did. We have not had a conversation about whether we have been responsible or not. When we look at Norway, it has $1 trillion in its prosperity fund. When we look at Alberta, it has $11 billion.

Maybe the member, who is from Alberta, can explain how that gap is happening and how the leadership of Norway is funding transition, a healthy economy, and protection of the environment at the same time as funding oil extraction.

Mr. Speaker, it does grate on me somewhat when I hear someone talk about dirty oil coming from Canada. It is so frustrating to hear that. The rhetoric is part of the frustration and reasons why we have a B.C. government tag-teaming with the Quebec government to slow down energy east, and then the reverse happening. I see those kinds of issues.

The member spoke about exporting and that this oil would go onto the world market. The point is to get it onto the world market and get world prices for these products. Right now we are captive to to the U.S. market and we are taking a terrible discount on every bit of oil that we sell. These are the sorts of things about which we have to be concerned.

An article from a guy from Seattle thanks B.C. for the oil discount. He thanks the citizens of B.C. who seem to once again have blocked an oil pipeline to the coast. Those living south of the border will continue to enjoy importing Canada's oil at substantial discounts while exporting American oil from Gulf ports at world market prices. This gift to them is around $100 billion a day Canadian, and the Americans greatly appreciate it. That is what we have to stop.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way made reference to government using this as a wedge issue. It is interesting because we have the New Democratic Party that often talks about the environment in the sense of doing everything necessary to protect it, including not having pipelines even being built to other economic deterrents. Then we have the Conservatives who are on the other extreme. However, we can look at what the government has consistently said, which is that we can work and move forward both for the environment and for our markets and the economy. Today we are talking about not only an election commitment, but something Canadians as a whole would support, which is having a moratorium in a certain section of the ocean.

Would my colleague not agree that we can do both, that we can be sensitive to the environment and oceans while at the same time have economic development that is based in some of the commodities and raw materials that we have in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I had the opportunity to go to some southeast Asian countries with the trade committee. We spoke to fund managers who were looking at Canada and asking for the reasons to invest in Canada. These people were talking about tens of billions of dollars. We have already seen $80 billion leave because of the actions of the government.

Is it a wedge issue? Yes, it is a wedge issue between traditional Liberals and the government of today. They are the ones who are telling us that there has to be a change because of what the government is doing. At any opportunity, it is labelling people and pushing people into different areas. Right now, the Liberals are using this whole concept of the environment, saying that they have done so much, that they are going to help, and that they are going to give social licence. We know there has been no social licence. The Liberals more or less have a tangential point of contact with the truth, and they do catch it once in a while. However, there is not that much extra to be learned from these Liberals.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-48. It is always both an honour and a privilege to stand in the House and have the opportunity to take part in these crucial debates.

I am speaking today mainly about the issue that Bill C-48 raises and why I will not support the bill.

The Liberal government has introduced Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, which would ban all tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia. Aside from this legislation just being another shameful step in phasing out the oil sands, it seems highly hypocritical to me. The Liberals believe that Venezuelan oil in Quebec is fine, that Saudi Arabia oil on the east coast is fine, that Canadian oil in Vancouver is fine, but they do not believe it is fine in northern British Columbia. This does not make any sense.

My colleagues in the Conservative caucus and I know that diversifying Canada's export markets for oil and gas is crucial to support the continued growth of our economy. We also know that the demand for Canadian oil is strongest in the rapidly growing market of the Asia-Pacific region.

We on this side of the aisle want to keep our country competitive and we will always support jobs and growth in Canada's energy sector.

Our Conservative caucus wants Canada to prosper in the international market so that Canadian families from coast to coast can prosper. I just do not understand why the Liberal government would put forward legislation like this which seeks to stifle prosperity for Canadians on one specific coast in one single sector.

This bill would establish an administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions, and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of $5 million. Nowhere else in Canada would there be a ban like this. The government is just trying to throw a wrench into the Canadian energy sector.

I want to touch on the work of the previous Conservative government. We introduced and implemented a number of measures to create a world-class tanker safety system in November 2014. These measures included modernizing Canada's navigation system, enhanced area response planning, building marine safety capacity in aboriginal communities, and ensuring polluters pay for spills and damages. These were meaningful changes while still supporting our energy sector in Canada.

I want to remind the House that there is already a voluntary exclusion zone of 100 kilometres for oil tankers travelling from Alaska to Washington state. This is a voluntary practice that has been in place since 1985.

The Liberals claim this legislation is being put forward in the name of the environment, but that is not at all the case. This is a pipeline moratorium under a different name.

My Conservative colleagues would suggest that Bill C-48 would do absolutely nothing for the preservation of British Columbia's environment. Ships, including U.S tankers travelling from Alaska to Washington state, will continue to be able to travel up and down the coast just outside the 100 kilometre limit. This bill does not take meaningful action in terms of the environment.

On that note, Canadian oil is extracted and transported under some of the safest and most environmentally strict regulations in the world. Conservatives are here to help, rather than hinder, Canada's energy sector. Preventing our Canadian oil resources from reaching customers in other countries only serves to increase the production of oil products extracted and transported in a less safe and less environmentally friendly way.

We need to support Canadian industry. The strange contradiction that we see here with the government's view on Canadian oil is that its opposition to it defeats its supposed greater goal of protecting the world's environment. Canadians deserve better than this.

The proposed moratorium would be in effect from the Canada-U.S. Alaska border and the northern tip of Vancouver Island. This legislation would prohibit oil tankers carrying oil as cargo from stopping, loading, and unloading at ports or marine installations in the moratorium area. Vessels carrying less than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil would be exempted from the moratorium. I believe the government should maintain strong regulations to allow for the safe passage of all vessels through Canadian waters rather than impose measures that target the development of one single industry.

In addition to this, there is another issue with this legislation I would like to raise. The 3,800-member Lax Kw'alaams based near Prince Rupert is a collective of nine tribes that oppose Bill C-48, known as the oil tanker moratorium act. I am proud that my colleagues and I support responsible development of all kinds of energy in all sectors across all provinces for the benefit of all of Canada. The government needs to look at the facts. It is important for this discussion that it consider all of the risks, costs, and benefits associated with this legislation, which was imposed without sufficient consultation with local communities and indigenous Canadians.

If we look at the evidence, we see that the tankers have safely and regularly transported crude oil from Canada's west coast since the 1930s. We also see that there have not been any tanker navigational issues or incidents in about 50 years in the port of Vancouver.

There is considerable support among first nations on B.C.'s coast for energy development opportunities. How does the government plan to move forward with this tanker moratorium without properly consulting coastal first nations? Canadians are concerned about the direction in which the government is taking this country. They are worried about their jobs, their industry, and their economy. This bill is an attack on the hundreds of thousands of energy workers across Canada. It is an attack on one industry, and one industry only, and one product. The government needs to head back to the drawing board with this legislation and focus on what is best for the growth of this industry, the growth of communities, and the growth of livelihoods.

My Conservative colleagues and I will continue to stand up for Canada's energy sector and continue to hold the government to account.

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, on behalf of the people of Courtenay—Alberni, I would like to extend our condolences on the loss of our good friend from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. When we lose a colleague in this place, it certainly puts aside all of the partisan elements. The member was at members' orientation. He welcomed us and treated us all with great respect, and I want to acknowledge that.

The member talked about safe passage of supertankers. As someone who lives on the coast of British Columbia, there have been recent incidents. There was a bunker spill in English Bay. It took 14 hours for the Coast Guard to respond. There was the diesel spill off the Heiltsuk territory. There was the floating freighter, the Simushir. The Coast Guard did not have an adequate response, never mind dealing with bitumen, which sinks. We need to figure this out before we can even talk about expanding tanker traffic in our coastal regions, and I think a ban is appropriate.

Madam Speaker, I was in Vancouver 10 days ago. We do not want any accidents, any spillage of diesel, gas, or crude in any shape or form at any time, but we have the technology. We have the means to fix it.

The bottom line is that Canadian resources help all 36 million Canadians. The number I hear is that we could build a school on a daily basis. We could build a hospital on a daily basis.

The oil from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, and from the United States travels through the same routes. Why can Canadian oil not go through the same routes, which would help all Canadians throughout the country from coast to coast to coast?

Madam Speaker, the moratorium would provide the highest level of environmental protection for B.C.'s northern coastline. A particular moratorium has been in place since 1972. We have reinforced it. We have made it such that it would be the highest level of environmental protection.

I am wondering what my hon. colleague would say to young people in his riding. I know there are young people in Whitby who are Earth Rangers ambassadors who are looking to our government to protect the environment. What does he say to the young people in his riding about why he opposes such a critical piece of legislation that would protect the regions of our coasts?

Madam Speaker, let us talk about what the Liberals promised. Remember Prime Minister Chrétien? He went to Kyoto and signed the deal, then Prime Minister Martin said it did not make sense. The Liberals keep coming back time after time with a different moratorium, a different point of view. At the end of the day, the children in my riding and in the member's riding, and the children in the 338 ridings throughout the country, do not want an accident. We want to make sure that we do what we need to do to make it accident-free and spillage-free in any shape or form.

Other countries are doing it. These are our resources. This is the only way we can take our resources to the Asia-Pacific. Otherwise, we are getting, as I understand, 70% of the crude price for the United States alone.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate at this late hour.

“He who looks for light work goes very tired to bed.” That is a Yiddish proverb and is often used to tell people who are looking for an easy way out of a hard day's work that at the end what happens is people actually work much harder. There is no such thing as easy work. There is no such thing as an easy way out.

We heard earlier from the member for Lakeland, who added that this was part of the Liberal Party's platform. The Liberals rolled this out right after the last election, and there was very little time for evidence-based policy-making to review whether this was the best thing to do. The Liberals committed to it, but it is an error in commitment. I would consider that the concept that the hard work of balancing the economy and the environment can be done with a quick moratorium is the easy way out.

If we look at the contents of the bill, we see that a blanket exemption could be provided by cabinet for anyone at any time to ship through those lanes. American tankers will still be able to go through this area, as long as they do not stop at a Canadian port. It simply shifts some of the tanker traffic further west off of the coast. It does not apply to where 95% of the tanker traffic is, which is on the southern part of the coast.

I have a lot of constituents who ask me what is wrong with the British Columbian government. They want to know why it is harassing oil and gas companies and pipeline companies. I am sure that some day it will start harassing railway companies as well for trying to ship a product that Vancouverites, people of the Greater Vancouver area and the entire Lower Mainland, want to use. People want a tank of gasoline, they want diesel, and they want to be able to heat their homes. These are products that everyday Canadians need to use. We live in a colder climate, and it is a necessity.

For people in my riding, this is twofold, because they work in the oil and gas sector. I have a great many white-collar employees and a lot of blue-collar workers—riggers, guys and women who used to work on the rigs—for whom this was their livelihood. They moved to Alberta or grew up in a small community in Alberta and went out to work on the rigs, and they earned an amazing income and were able to provide for their families.

Decisions like this, a tanker moratorium ban—which truthfully should be called a pipeline ban, because that is effectively what it is going to do—puts those people out of work. It is just one part of this grand Liberal strategy to phase out the oil sands, but also, in great part, to phase out the oil and gas industry, the lifeblood of Albertans. To phase it out, Liberals are going to have to do things like these moratoriums, cancelling pipelines, and making it so much more difficult to upgrade the product right here at home.

Today—and I checked the Library of Parliament—we pretty much upgrade and refine most of the product that we produce right here in Canada. It is about a 2,000-megalitre difference between the two. In the Greater Vancouver area over the past 30 or 40 years, there were refineries that closed, and new ones did not open. It is pretty easy to see. Most provincial governments and the federal government have been imposing carbon taxes, and they fall very heavily on large emitters. It turns out that it is not free to produce a refined good. It produces large amounts of carbon emissions. Therefore, they get taxed at an excessive rate. It is not that easy.

There is no such thing as easy work or an easy job. I think that through this piece of legislation, the government will find that it will not achieve its goal of balancing the economy and the environment. It is actually going to hurt the economy much more than it is thinking.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48 at report stage, which the government has called the “oil tanker moratorium act”. I would assert that this title is misleading, as is the bill to which it is attached.

In my previous speech in regard to Bill C-48, I made clear how this not about banning the currently non-existent oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, nor will it affect the tanker traffic that is currently traversing only 100 kilometres off the northwestern coast of British Columbia. Furthermore, nowhere else in Canada is there a ban of this sort.

The Canada West Foundation, in its submission to the committee studying this proposed act, put it succinctly. It said:

There are no restrictions on tankers carrying crude and persistent oils from stopping, loading and unloading at ports along any of Canada’s other coastlines, particularly the East Coast or internal waterways, like the St. Lawrence River, where oil tankers regularly travel. Implementing Bill C-48 will send a clear message that it is okay to have oil tanker traffic when it supports refinery jobs in Montreal, Sarnia, Quebec City and Saint John, but not when it supports jobs in Alberta and Saskatchewan tied to the export of western Canadian oil to Asia.

The Conservatives will not participate in the fantasy that the bill has anything to do with transportation, of which I am the shadow minister. This is precisely why my colleague for Lakeland, who is our shadow minister for natural resources, has taken point and led the discussion surrounding the bill before us.

Despite objections, it is clear that Bill C-48 is about banning pipelines to tidewater in northern B.C. Of course, the Prime Minister cannot very well pass a bill in Parliament that bans pipelines in one part of British Columbia while supposedly championing another pipeline in the south—thus the charade.

The government should be forthright with Canadians by bringing forward the bill that the Liberals actually want, which is one banning pipelines in northern British Columbia. That way, they would find out what Canadians really think about their ideological opposition to Canadian oil. Of course, they will never do that. The government does not have the courage to take this to Canadians with the facts laid clear, because they know that their ill-conceived ideas would be absolutely rejected. In fact, I know of one group of Canadians in particular who do not support the government's de facto ban on pipelines in northern British Columbia, and that is the over 30 first nations who supported and stood to benefit from northern gateway.

When the Prime Minister intervened in the arm's-length, non-political review process and cancelled the northern gateway project, these first nations were taken completely by surprise. In committee we were told that they were excited to hold a significant stake in this important project and secure a better economic future for the members of their bands through the jobs and the financial strength that comes with natural resource development.

It was estimated that over two dozen first nations invested millions in legal fees to reach agreements with Enbridge to share in the prosperity that northern gateway would bring. However, instead of a generational wealth-generating project, these bands were left empty-handed because of the Prime Minister's political decision.

The Prime Minister claims that consultation with first nation stakeholders is a priority. However, the underhanded cancellation of northern gateway shows that the government's claim is demonstrably false.

Many first nation groups do support our oil and gas sector. Eagle Spirit Holdings, for example, is led by the Chiefs Council, which is composed of over 30 first nation communities. We also heard in committee that their goal is to create an energy corridor in northern Alberta and British Columbia that would change the lives of thousands of their band members.

Eagle Spirit was proposed as an alternative to northern gateway a pipeline that would be owned and managed directly by first nations, with stricter environmental standards than even the highest government recommendations. This project would be the greatest boon to communities along its route.

In addition to the thousands of jobs and millions of dollars that the project would generate on a continuing basis, Eagle Spirit would run power lines and fibre optic cable along its path, increasing the quality of life for everyone in the area.

However, now there is a significant stumbling block for Eagle Spirit, and it is this very bill. That is why the Chiefs Council has taken it upon itself to challenge the oil tanker moratorium bill. I will quote from an article:

The Chiefs Council represents over 30 communities engaged in the First Nations-led Eagle Spirit energy corridor proposed from Bruderheim, Alberta to tidewater in northern British Columbia. Its members have unextinguished Aboriginal rights and title from time immemorial and continuing into the present, or have treaties over the land and ocean of their traditional territories. Having protected the environment as first-stewards of their traditional territories for millennia, the Chiefs Council is vehemently opposed to American ENGOs dictating government policy in their traditional territories—particularly the illegal imposition of the Great Bear Rainforest and the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act proposed by the Liberal Government.

Further on the article states:

We have, and will always, put the protection of the environment first, however, this must be holistically balanced with social welfare, employment, and business opportunities. These government actions harm our communities and deny our leaders the opportunity to create hope and a brighter future for their members.

The Chiefs Council is challenging this bill because it takes away their ability to create, in their own words, as I quoted earlier, “hope and a brighter future” for those they represent.

Energy projects are a path to self-sustainability and a better future for many of these bands. Unfortunately, the Liberal government does not agree. There is abundant evidence that the government disapproves of our oil and gas sector. There is the recent revelation that the government is funding protesters against the Trans Mountain pipeline. As well, the government has refused to use its full power to get Trans Mountain built, and the Prime Minister made comments to the French media recently, bemoaning his inability to phase out the industry faster.

It is clear that the government cares more about signalling its progressiveness, and I used that term loosely, to the rest of the world than it does about results. I say that because if the Liberals cared about reducing carbon emissions worldwide and pursuing policy that is best for the environment, best for women, and best for minorities, they would be championing Canadian oil and gas worldwide whenever possible. No country has the environmental record that Canada has. No country has our commitment to clean production. Of the large oil-producing nations in the world, only the United States and Norway can touch our record on human rights.

Our oil is ethical, safe to transport, and it can change the lives of thousands of first nations band members who want to pursue that hope and a brighter future. Instead of championing Canada, the Liberal government is allowing the industry to be strangled by a lack of transportation, over-regulation, and overtaxation.

It may come as no surprise that I will not be supporting this bill. I urge all those in this place to join me in voting against this bill to support the rights of economic self-determination for first nations groups like Eagle Spirit.

Madam Speaker, of course, my government is implementing a promise we made in the 2015 election. Our Prime Minister made it very, very clear that one of the promises we would be making in that election was that we would impose a moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia, and we are keeping that promise. In fact, we were elected and that is part of our commitment.

I find my colleague's comments a bit disingenuous in the sense that, first of all, northern gateway, by the way, in consultation with the previous government, did not sufficiently address indigenous peoples. That is why it was blocked. That is very, very clear, and yet she talks a lot about indigenous peoples. The member failed to mention the many first nations that wholeheartedly support the moratorium. Why did she not mention any of them?

Madam Speaker, I would put back to the minister that it is a bit rich for him to talk about consultation when we heard in committee that regardless of whether a first nation's community supported the moratorium or not, none of them had been consulted. This was an initiative written into that minister's mandate letter without any consultation with first nations in British Columbia.

To talk about the Liberals' 2015 election platform where they promised to do this, their platform is basically a list of broken promises. We have seen considerable flexibility on the part of the government to break many of the promises made in its 2015 platform. To say that this particular platform commitment is binding would be the height of hypocrisy from the government.

Madam Speaker, the member talked about putting the environment first and how that is important to her, and she talked about Canada's record in terms of shipping oil and energy. I live in coastal British Columbia, where we have seen recent failures to deal with spills, whether it be a bunker spill in English Bay or a diesel spill such as the Nathan E. Stewart spill up in Heiltsuk territory. The failure of Canada to be able to address these spills is clearly evident. We also know that the government has not been able to find a way to clean up raw bitumen, and neither has the industry.

Maybe the member could speak to how she can support increasing tanker traffic and putting tens of thousands of coastal jobs at risk when we have not been able to deal with the spills that have happened currently, never mind shipping raw bitumen.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that Bill C-48 would do absolutely nothing for the preservation of British Columbia's environment. This is a symbolic bill. Ships, including U.S. tankers travelling from Alaska to Washington state, would continue to be able to travel up and down the coast just outside the 100-kilometre limit.

Further, when we talk about Canadian oil production, Canadian oil is extracted and transported under some of the safest and most environmentally strict regulations in the world. I truly believe preventing our Canadian oil resources from reaching customers in other countries only serves to proliferate the use of oil products extracted and transported in a less safe and less environmentally friendly way.

This is a strange contradiction we see, and I really believe the NDP's view on Canadian oil is that the NDP's opposition to its defeat is the supposed greater goal of protecting the world's environment.

Madam Speaker, Canadians are blessed with some of the most spectacular coastlines on the planet. Canada boasts the world's longest coastline, over 243,000 kilometres from the Pacific to the Arctic to the Atlantic. In addition to offering exceptional economic development, tourism, and recreational opportunities, Canada's vast coastal waters are home to rare species and precious ecosystems. Our coasts are very special places, particularly for indigenous peoples who have occupied these areas since time immemorial.

Bill C-48 recognizes that with these gifts provided by our natural coastal spaces, we also assume tremendous responsibility. We have a duty to protect our marine heritage for present and future generations. That responsibility includes safe and clean marine shipping, which is essential to our country's economic growth. Make no mistake, marine transportation is fundamental to Canada's economic well-being. Delivering our products to global markets and receiving goods from other countries is vital to the livelihood of Canadians.

The environmental and social aspects of marine transportation are also very important. Freight transportation in these sensitive waters must be done in an environmentally sustainable manner. Canadians expect us to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

This is why the oil tanker moratorium act is so important to Canadians and to this government. Once in effect, this legislation would help protect the pristine waters off British Columbia's northern coast. Let me briefly summarize the key components of this bill, one of the many progressive steps we are talking under the $1.5-billion oceans protection plan.

The oil tanker moratorium would prohibit oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude or persistent oils as cargo from stopping, loading, or unloading any of these oils at ports or marine installations in northern British Columbia. I am referring to products such as partially upgraded bitumen, synthetic crude oil, petroleum pitch, and bunker C fuel oil.

Vessels carrying less than 12,500 metric tons of crude or persistent oil as cargo would also be permitted to stop, load, or unload in the moratorium area. This would allow northern communities to receive critical shipments of heating oils and other products they require. For many communities without road or rail access, the only way to receive products, like liquefied natural gas, propane, gasoline, or jet fuel, is by ship.

The proposed moratorium area extends from the Alaskan border in the north down to the point on B.C’s mainland adjacent to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, including Haida Gwaii. This moratorium will complement the existing voluntary tanker exclusion zone, which has been in place since 1985.

A key concern is the transfer of crude oil or persistent oil from larger vessels to smaller ones. This bill would prohibit ship-to-ship transfers.

Anyone caught trying to elude the moratorium would face stiff fines. The legislation includes strong penalties reaching up to $5 million.

Equally important, the bill includes flexibility for amendments. For example, products could be added to or removed from the list of banned persistent oils based on science and environmental safety. Environmental safety would be the main consideration for any additions or deletions to the product list through the regulatory process. Once adopted, this legislation would provide a high level of protection for the Canadian coastline around Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound.

Transport Canada officials and I have been working with marine stakeholders, as well as indigenous and coastal communities to make sure this happens. We have consulted extensively with a wide cross-section of Canadians on how to improve marine safety in Canada and successfully implement the proposed moratorium.

Since January 2016, we have held roughly 75 engagement sessions to discuss the moratorium, including 21 round tables. Over the same time, my department has also received more than 80 letters and other submissions on the moratorium. In addition, approximately 330 people have provided submissions or comments on Transport Canada's online engagement portal.

As parliamentarians know, the oceans protection plan includes more than just new measures to improve marine safety and responsible shipping, and to protect Canada's marine environment. It also includes a commitment to create new partnerships with indigenous and coastal communities. Indigenous peoples must have meaningful participation in the marine shipping regime. They must have a seat at the table.

This makes practical sense. Indigenous peoples along the coast have valuable traditional and local knowledge. They are also often best placed to respond to emergencies. Recognizing this, I held round table and bilateral meetings with first nations on the north and cental coasts of British Columbia to understand their perspectives on the moratorium.

As my hon. colleagues are undoubtedly aware, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities also held public hearings on the legislation. I was particularly encouraged by the level of support for the bill at the committee hearings by witnesses representing indigenous peoples, and I would like to thank the various groups that took the time to meet or write and express their views with either me or members of the committee.

I think it is important to note that there were some groups who would have liked the moratorium to be implemented in a different way or who spoke out against certain elements. We listened to their views and concerns, and we have determined that the right balance is achieved by the proposed legislation which takes a precautionary approach.

We also met with environmental non-governmental organizations, and they had the opportunity to express themselves. We also met with industry representatives, as the industrial sector has a direct stake in these issues. Representatives of the shipping sector participated in a number of meetings, and provided letters to me. I received correspondence from the Business Council of British Columbia as well. In addition to the participation in round table meetings, representatives from the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta took part in regular bilateral discussions on the moratorium and marine safety.

We listened carefully. We listened to stakeholders and Canadians, and their comments formed the basis of this bill. We took careful note of the opinions of Canadians who are directly affected by the proposed moratorium. We are aware that some groups or individuals will think that their concerns were not taken into account, but we believe that this bill strikes a fair balance.

The moratorium's parameters are also informed by and based on science. For instance, the moratorium would apply to products known to be the heaviest and that persist the longest when spilled. Crude oils and a range of persistent oils pose the greatest threats to vulnerable marine mammals and ecosystems.

One does not need to live on Canada's west coast to appreciate the need for a new approach to securing prosperity for Canadians, an approach that protects and preserves the bounty that nature has bestowed upon us. The legislation before us does more than address the needs and concerns of Canadians living in B.C.'s coastal communities; it advances the interests of the entire country.

The oil tanker moratorium act would mean much tougher laws for shipping and marine transportation, to reduce the adverse impacts of vessel operations on our environment and to better protect Canadians. As importantly, this legislation clearly demonstrates that we can make meaningful progress on both economic and environmental fronts for the betterment of all Canadians. We can ensure the safe, efficient, and secure transportation of goods that create jobs and prosperity while safeguarding the waters that are the very source of life.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to make the oil tanker moratorium a reality, something that has been proposed and discussed by the Canadian public and in the House of Commons by all parties for years. It is long past time for this necessary and worthy legislation.

Madam Speaker, we know that diversifying Canada's export market for oil and gas is critical to supporting the continued growth of our economy. Demand for Canadian oil is strongest in the rapidly growing market of the Asia-Pacific region.

Venezuelan oil in Quebec is okay. Saudi Arabian oil on the east coast is okay. Canadian oil in Vancouver is okay, but not in northern B.C. Why?

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the importance of oil. That allows me to ask, because I do not think it has been specifically asked to the Conservatives, whether they are going to be supporting the TMX pipeline, which we have very clearly said is important to the national interest. This is an extremely important pipeline. It has 157 conditions attached to it. We are putting in place the oceans protection plan, an unprecedented marine protection plan. However, I have not heard from the Conservative Party on whether it will support, in the national interest, the TMX pipeline.

Madam Speaker, we certainly will be supporting Bill C-48. We have some concerns, and we have spoken about those concerns. However, the minister speaks of safety and protection of B.C.'s north coast. The minister mentioned the oceans protection plan in his speech. We have concern with this plan, in that there is no way to clean up toxic dilbit. I am wondering if the minister could elaborate on his oceans protection plan as to what technology exists to clean up toxic dilbit.

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question allows me to talk about what is in the oceans protection plan. There are two parts to it. There is prevention, and then, if there is a need to respond, there is the ability to respond. It is very important to realize that we will be putting a lot of measures in place for prevention. There will be six extra radar stations. We will be working with the first nations along the entire coast of British Columbia, who are often those who know the local waters where a potential incident can occur and are able to respond the most rapidly. We will be providing them with equipment, training, and with awareness of the traffic that is in the zone.

All of those things will help them to respond. At the same time, we are working to be in a position, when the TMX goes forward, to respond efficiently to any possible spill of dilbit. We believe that with the oceans protection plan, the chances are very minimal. However, if something should occur, we will have the necessary infrastructure and response capability in place to respond quickly and efficiently.

Madam Speaker, I am going to reframe the question from my colleague, because the minister chose not to answer it.

In the opposition, we are trying to understand the philosophy of the government with respect to energy infrastructure. The government is explicitly making it impossible to proceed with one pipeline while it has said it is supportive of the Trans Mountain pipeline, even while it is funding opponents of it. The government is okay with certain kinds of tankers, particularly if they are transporting Saudi oil or Venezuelan oil, but not Canadian oil.

Could the minister tell the House what the difference is between allowing Canadian oil to be exported versus having Alaskan oil there? What is the difference between the pipeline that the government has approved, even though it is not doing anything to develop it, and this northern gateway pipeline? Does the minister have any coherent—?

We are in fact the only government that is trying to get a pipeline built to tidal water, something that the Conservatives under Harper were totally unable to do. I do not know why the member does not understand the fact that if we get a—

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to support Bill C-48, the north coast tanker ban. It has been a legislative priority of Canada's NDP for over a decade, and we welcome the Liberals finally taking action on this pressing issue. The NDP is pleased that the Liberal government is finally taking action to protect the north coast from crude oil tanker traffic. However, we are concerned that Bill C-48 would give the minister too much arbitrary power to exempt vessels from the ban and define what fuels are covered under the act. We hope the government will implement constructive amendments to limit ministerial power and increase spill response resources. We were also very concerned about the lack of consultation with first nations.

I want to give a little background about the moratorium. It is part of the government's oceans protection plan that was announced in November 2016. I have already brought up some of my concerns with the OPP. For example, the technology to clean up dilbit has not been identified and does not exist, yet we are still pursuing projects that would carry dilbit to our coast. If that were spilled in our oceans, that would have very devastating consequences. Bill C-48 proposes an oil tanker moratorium that extends from the Canada–U.S. border in the north, to the point of B.C.'s mainland adjacent to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, including Haida Gwaii.

Oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of crude oil or persistent oil as cargo would be prohibited from mooring, anchoring, or loading or unloading any of the oil at a port or marine installation in the moratorium area. The bill would also prohibit vessels and persons from transporting crude oil or persistent oil from an oil tanker to a port or marine installation within the moratorium area to circumvent the prohibition.

In order to allow for community and industry supply, Bill C-48 would permit the shipment of amounts below 12,500 tonnes. This is still a huge amount of oil that could be transported on that coast. However, the bill would prevent large oil tanker ships from traversing the waters. The bill includes in its administration enforcement regime, reporting requirements, marine inspection powers, and penalties up to $5 million. That is a very insignificant amount, but it is a penalty nonetheless. Multiple private members' bills have been proposed in the past to protect the north coast, including mine. Back in 2011, there was Bill C-211.

Here are some facts about other impacts that the coast has had. Obviously, the most known is the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill on the coast, which was a catastrophic spill. The spill cleanup and coastal recovery cost $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid only $3.5 billion. Twenty years after the spill, fish habitat and stock still have not fully recovered. An oil spill of this sort would be devastating to wild salmon, marine mammals, birds, and coastal forest, including the Great Bear Rainforest. It would devastate coastal economies by jeopardizing tourism, commercial fishing, and first nations fishing.

We also know about the recent sinking of the Nathan E. Stewart fuel barge, which shows that navigation in these waters can be extremely hazardous and dangerous, and what damage can be caused by even a minor spill. The Nathan E. Stewart ran aground in the early hours of October 13, 2016 near Bella Bella, in the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest. The vessel eventually sank, spilling as much as 110,000 litres of diesel into the marine environment. Cleanup efforts were repeatedly hampered by bad weather, and the vessel was not recovered until a month after it sank. We were lucky that the vessel was not full to its maximum capacity, which likely prevented more extensive damage.

A north coast tanker ban is popular in British Columbia. Polls show that 79% of people in the province support a ban on oil tanker traffic in B.C.'s inside coastal waters. That was back in 2011, but if anything, it has gained strength since then.

The ban prevents the creation of disastrous pipelines like the Enbridge northern gateway, which would have run 1,177 kilometres from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C., at the head of the Douglas Channel. The westbound pipeline was to carry up to 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day, meaning that up 220 oil tankers a year would have to navigate the waters of the Great Bear Rainforest to export the diluted bitumen to foreign markets.

The waters off the B.C. north coast are a significant salmon migration route. Millions of salmon come from the more than 650 streams and rivers along the coast. The impact of a simple oil spill would be catastrophic. The commercial fishery on the north coast catches over $100 million worth of fish per year, more than 2,500 residents along B.C.'s north coast work in the commercial fishery, and the fish processing industry employs thousands more.

The beauty of this region and the abundance of the salmon, whales, and other marine mammals have made it a world-renowned destination for ecotourism. The tourism industry has played a major role for employment, economic growth, and opportunity in B.C.'s coastal communities. Business in this region has worked hard to promote its location as a major tourist destination.

The west coast wilderness tourism industry is now estimated to be worth over $782 million annually, employing 26,000 people full time and roughly 40,000 in total. B.C.'s north shoreline is dotted with sport fishing lodges, as fishing enthusiasts take part in the world-famous fishery. People are amazed after spending even a day kayaking, bear watching, or enjoying a guided tour on B.C.'s northwest coast.

We know the importance of the coastline on the north coast. I want to turn now to the south coast, and how the people in the south of British Columbia on Canada's west coast find the amazing ocean economy and potential of the marine ecosystem just as important as that of the north coast. They are concerned about a similar project, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion.

To give a little background information, this expansion project would include building a new pipeline and constructing 12 new pump stations, 19 new storage tanks, and three new marine berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burrard Inlet, which is near my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam and Anmore and Belcarra. Most of the pipeline oil would be destined for the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, where it would be loaded onto oil tankers that would navigate past Vancouver, the Gulf Islands, and through the Juan de Fuca Strait before reaching open ocean. The expansion would mean a sevenfold increase in oil tanker traffic from the Westridge terminal, from around 60 oil tankers to more than 400 per year.

I will give a quick update on that proposal, because it is very much a concern to many in British Columbia and in Canada.

Kinder Morgan has met less than half of the 157 required National Energy Board conditions. One-third of the final route has not been approved. Now the company is begging for relief on many conditions and wants to delay detailed route hearings. What this tells us in Parliament is that they are very concerned about what is happening on our coast.

Our coastal economy, community, and marine environment are very important. Salmon and whales are critical to our way of life, to west coast Canada, and to British Columbia. People are speaking out. They are very concerned. Yes, they want to find an economy that works, but one that works in tune with keeping our salmon, whales, and marine environment as intact as possible. Projects such as the northern gateway proposal and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain proposal would have a direct impact on that economy and on those features that make us British Columbians and keep us Canadian.

In conclusion, we welcome the Liberal government finally taking action to defend the north coast from oil tanker traffic. However, we are concerned that the loopholes in the legislation might be enough to drive an oil tanker through. Therefore, the government must adopt the amendments. The bill does nothing to protect the coast from spills of refined oil, and the government needs to work on that.

Madam Speaker, it is not going to surprise my colleague that we have some substantial disagreements about pipeline policy. I think probably we would both feel that there is certain lack of consistency from the government on the other end, and he spoke about the issue of Trans Mountain pipeline. Our party supports the northern gateway project and we support the Trans Mountain pipeline, because we see these as projects that bring energy resources to the coast. We see them creating export and economic opportunities for Canada. We also believe that Canada's high standard of environmental rules and performance compares favourably with the other countries that are selling oil to Canada or that are exporting oil along our coasts from Alaska.

I wonder if the member would be inclined to agree with me that there is an inconsistency in terms of government policy, and that there is a lack of rationale for why it says it supports one pipeline but not the other. I think it should support both. I know he thinks it should support neither. Does he have any thoughts on the lack of clarity around how the government actually decides which projects it is going to support and which projects it will not?

Madam Speaker, I think consistency is critical. I came from local government before my term here as an MP, and I know that businesses, community members, and individuals absolutely want to know what the rules are. They want to know that they are consistently applied. They want that to be transparent. They want governments at all levels to be very transparent about what those rules are. Therefore, I agree that there should be consistency.

Obviously, we are on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to oil tanker traffic and pipeline proposals when there is not a fair process applied, when first nations have not been consulted properly, and when environmental assessments are inadequate.

The member mentioned what energy alternatives could look like. I think, as do Canada's New Democrats, that we should be exploring hydro power, tidal power, solar energy, geothermal energy, and working with our cities right across this country and our diverse regions to explore those options.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I believe that there is consistency and that the government has been very straightforward right from the beginning when taking office two years ago. Because of that consistency, unlike the Harper government, we have actually been successful in dealing with the environment and our oceans and ensuring that there is a pipeline. There have been consultations. Members across the way do not make reference to the many different indigenous groups that are in favour of what the government is doing and are in support of it.

The problem in the House, as I see it, is that the NDP policy is that the best type of pipeline is no pipeline. The New Democrats do not believe in pipeline expansion. They would prolong any sort of process just to kill the potential markets, not realizing how important it is for the national interest to have a pipeline. The Conservatives, on the other hand, completely disregard any idea of consultation and the environment.

I believe that we have done well as a government. Therefore, I specifically ask the member this: where is it that he believes there is no policy, when in fact we know there is a policy?

Madam Speaker, I think the issues that I brought up in my speech would answer that question. Hopefully, the member was listening. I talked about ministerial discretion, which gives the minister the power to make huge changes and amendments. There is no time limit in terms of when those decisions could end. Therefore, a minister in a new government could reverse the entire point and purpose of this oil tanker ban on the north coast. That is a huge discrepancy under the oceans protection plan.

I previously asked the Minister of Transport how, if the northern gateway project were to go through, it would go about cleaning up dilbit. The technology does not exist. The transport minister could not answer.

Canada's New Democrats have been clear. We need to transition to a low-carbon economy immediately and start to work with our provinces, territories, and municipalities at exploring other options and ramping up hydro power, tidal power, geothermal energy, and solar energy. There are so many other examples that could get us to that low-carbon economy.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to support Bill C-48, a bill to legislate a permanent tanker ban along British Columbia's north coast. I also have amendments that I hope will still pass, which I brought before the committee.

I find the debate about this tanker ban to take place, as often happens, in sort of a miasma of amnesia. It is important for Canadians to know that we are now legislating a tanker ban that was honoured and in effect from 1972 until Stephen Harper chose to imagine it away. From 1972 until at least 2012, every federal and provincial government had accepted, as did our courts, that there was a moratorium against crude oil tankers along B.C.'s north coast, particularly in Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance, and Queen Charlotte Sound.

Just for the purpose of giving us our bearings, I want to revisit how that tanker ban came to be in effect and the implications today when we look at data about the safety of transiting B.C.'s north coast and the importance of recognizing that the tanker ban was in place from 1972 until, as I said, Stephen Harper chose to ignore it.

That tanker ban was put in place in 1972 by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. It was as a result of an immediate threat to the B.C. north coast, primarily from a proposed expansion of oil tanker traffic from Alaska to the Juan de Fuca Strait.

Now, there was a backbencher in the Liberal ranks who went on to become the minister of fisheries, the minister of environment, and so on. At that point, Dave Anderson was a backbencher from a riding that was not yet called Victoria, but that is where he was. I think it was called Esquimalt—Saanich at the time. In any case, Dave Anderson was a backbencher MLA who was also simultaneously involved with environmental groups in a lawsuit in the U.S. to try to get the newly minted National Environmental Policy Act on the U.S. side of the border to have a mandatory, thorough environmental review of the threat of Alaska oil tanker traffic bound for Juan de Fuca and what that would mean for the B.C. north coast.

David Anderson, Liberal MLA, went to Pierre Trudeau, Liberal prime minister, and put it to him that the case to protect the north coast of B.C. depended quite a lot on Canada federally exerting a policy that it would not put its tankers through there either. It was important for the legal case south of the border and it was important in principle.

I would like to see a tanker ban on any tanker carrying dilbit because, as my other hon. colleagues have already pointed out, there is no technology to clean up dilbit, but I want to hold our attention for a moment on what was happening in 1972.

I know a lot of hon. members are not from the B.C. coast, but if they look at a map, they will see why it is particularly important not to have any oil tanker traffic this area. Being originally from Cape Breton, I am often asked why there is no tanker ban on the Atlantic coast and why it only happened on the B.C. coast. It is all about the specifics of an extremely turbulent, active ocean in those places and the presence offshore of a land mass. Therefore, any spill that occurred along the Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance, and Queen Charlotte Sound would create an oil spill that not only would not float out to sea but would go back and forth, between striking the coasts of Haida Gwaii, which we then called the Queen Charlotte Islands, and backing up to hit the coast of British Columbia. It was a specific geographical threat that continues to this day. I think it is the second most active ocean current on the planet, according to Environment Canada data from the time.

David Anderson was able to convince Pierre Trudeau to put in place a tanker ban. It stayed in place from 1972 until 2012.

What is the significance of that? It means that every time people proposing oil tanker traffic along our coast point to the safety and the safety record, the safety record has something to do with the fact that we have not allowed crude oil tankers through those waters since 1972. That has something to do with the great record of not having had oil spills: it's because we do not allow the oil tankers there. We have not since 1972.

This piece of legislation does what the Liberals promised. I heard my hon. colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek making the suggestion that they break so many promises, why not break this one too. I do not want to go in that direction. I want to thank them and approve and applaud when the Liberals keep a promise. This is an important promise. It is a legislated tanker ban that meets the goals of decades of commitments to protect those northern waters. What particularly important nation are we also protecting? It is the Haida Nation.

The member talked about how first nations were consulted. There were extensive consultations before the 1972 tanker moratorium. The Haida Nation particularly, which has the most at stake, as well as coastal nations on the other side, along the mainland of Canada, has been consistent for decades that it does not not want tankers in its territorial waters. The Haida Nation is right. The threat is far too dangerous. Crude oil along that coastline would despoil traditional fishing, not to mention tourism and other economic benefits.

This is not a tanker ban that came out of the blue. That is my main point so far. This is not something the current Prime Minister invented for an election platform. This would fulfill a commitment made in 1972 and finally give it legal teeth.

It could be better. There is no question about that. For instance, we have had spills that were devastating from much smaller vessels that would still be allowed under this ban. Everyone knows about the really disastrous spill from the Nathan E. Stewart running aground off Bella Bella. It was certainly well below the limit that would be allowed under this bill. It had a huge impact on the Heiltsuk Nation. Chief Marilyn Slett has described it as a complete disaster for that nation, that community, those waters, and those species. That was well below the 12,500 metric tons that would be permissible under this bill. I would really prefer to see a 2,000-metric-ton threshold, which was actually initially in the Transport Canada discussion paper put forward. It was widely supported to hold it to a 2,000-metric-ton threshold.

It is true that in the outer waters, those U.S. tankers could still move, but that is the point. We are protecting the historically significant internal waters of Canada that have been protected since 1972.

Having had this moratorium for so long, the waters there have been protected from crude oil. However, in the intervening time since 1972, we have had an entirely different product proposed for shipment. The different product is bitumen mixed with diluent, which cannot be cleaned up. That is the best scientific advice we have in Canada from numerous studies that have been peer reviewed. Bitumen, which is a solid, is only mixed with diluent to make it flow through a pipeline. It is a unique carrying mechanism. It is not a product. Bitumen is the product; diluent is added only to make it flow through a pipeline.

It really cannot be overstated in this place, for members who are not as deeply immersed as many of us in British Columbia are in the multitude of reasons the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion is not a good idea for Canada, that bitumen mixed with diluent cannot be cleaned up. The diluent, which is a fossil fuel condensate like naphtha, butane, and benzene, is added just to make the solid material, bitumen, flow through a pipeline. At the other end, it gets loaded onto a tanker. Wherever the tanker goes, maybe to a refinery in some other country, taking Canadian jobs with it and away from refineries in Canada, the diluent then needs to be pulled out of the material, because it is not commercially valuable at that point. The product then goes back to solid bitumen, and they have to upgrade the solid bitumen and put it through a refinery.

The oceans protection plan is still not a plan. One of my constituents, the Hon. Pat Carney, who is the former minister of energy, says that it is an oceans protection wish list. We would like to see a plan. We know it is a $1.5-billion promise. We do not know how many millions are supposed to be spent on the Pacific, how many millions on the Arctic Ocean, and how many millions on B.C. oceans. We do not know.

As we look at Bill C-48, I still hope to see amendments so we can be more protective of our coastlines. I will vote for Bill C-48 and I will defend it as the continuation of a tanker ban we have had in place since 1972.

Madam Speaker, we may disagree on policy in this place. That is why we have this place. Ostensibly, we can debate and work things out and come up with better public policy.

At one time my colleague castigated me on parliamentary decorum. I would just love to give her an opportunity to tell this place and Canadians if she thinks it was parliamentary to wilfully break the law and disregard the rule of law in terms of her incident at the Kinder Morgan site in British Columbia.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary decorum occurs in this place. I do not think choosing to use incendiary language or to be disrespectful to other members is helpful in this place. That is why I have never heckled, not once. I maintain parliamentary decorum.

I respect the rule of law. I am very keen to see what the Federal Court of Appeal will be saying about the 15 court cases challenging the legality of Kinder Morgan's permits.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her historical perspective as well as a very timely perspective today.

There has been some talk of governments, whether it be the Alberta government or the federal government, bailing out this Texas-owned pipeline to the point of several billions of dollars. I have heard anywhere from $2 billion to $9 billion. Could the member comment on what taxpayers might think is a better use if the government was going to invest between $2 billion and $9 billion in the oil industry?

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely astonishing that the federal government would consider giving any money whatsoever to a Houston-based pipeline company with a very dubious record on environmental performance.

By the way, Richard Kinder, the founder, was the vice-president of Enron. A good number of the executives at Kinder Morgan are alumni of Enron, which was, of course, found historically guilty of fraud, scams, and con games galore. Richard Kinder found himself not in jail, like some of his colleagues at the end of the Enron disaster, but owning Enron Liquid Pipelines. Enron Liquid Pipelines became Kinder Morgan, and it bought Trans Mountain, another company run by a Canadian company, Trans Mountain, from the early fifties. That is another historical glitch. Kinder Morgan has appropriated the safety record of a different company shipping a different product in the 1950s.

There is no worse way to spend federal public revenue than by giving it to Kinder Morgan.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, one of the election commitments the government made in the lead-up to October was that we would bring in a moratorium, understanding and appreciating that the public desire is to see a government deal with our oceans and protect them, whether it is with the investment of literally hundreds of millions of dollars or the moratorium. This is, in fact, a commitment to fulfill a promise to Canadians.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on why these are important commitments.

Democracy is fragile, and many Canadians and many voters in democracies around the world have a declining level of respect for people like us, because they watch politicians make promises, and they get into office and break them. Every single broken promise is a gamble on the future of democracy. Will the voter who believed the promise that 2015 would be the last election held under first past the post feel like voting again with that being a broken promise?

Every promise matters. I think keeping this promise, legislating the tanker ban for the northern B.C. coast, is one that is historic and significant.

Without any partisan spin whatsoever, I thank the government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Transport for bringing this in. Please, go back to keeping some of the other promises.

Madam Speaker, today I will address the oil tanker moratorium act, and in particular, its impacts on indigenous peoples and communities that support responsible resource development.

Bill C-48 is not really about the protection of coastlines or marine ecology. It is actually only a ban on Canadian oil development and exports, on the oil sands, and on pipelines. It is an attack on the hundreds of thousands of energy workers across the country, on one industry, and on one product.

Bill C-48 specifically and only prohibits the on- and off-loading of tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes of crude and persistent oils at ports or marine installations along B.C.'s north coast. It does not target any other vessels of comparable capacity carrying any other product, or vessels of any size, which have similar volumes of fuel on board to operate. It does not even enforce the 100-kilometre voluntary exclusion zone, in the region since 1985.

It only applies to one coast, not to any other Canadian coasts or ports where tankers of all products and from all countries travel regularly. Its intent is clearly to permanently prevent vital energy infrastructure in the region, denying any potential for oil exports to the Asia Pacific from there, which could expand market access for Canada and reduce Canada's near complete dependence on the United States as a customer for Canadian oil.

Diversifying Canada's exports is crucial now, as the U.S. ramps up production to secure its own domestic supply and rapidly escalates its own crude oil exports after removing the 40-year ban. It is estimated that the U.S. will supply 80% of the world's growing global demand for oil in the next five years, while the Liberals force Canada's oil to remain mostly landlocked.

Bill C-48 is also all about politics. It was a predetermined and foregone conclusion for partisan purposes entirely. The Prime Minister instructed its imposition in mandate letters to ministers only 24 days after the 2015 election. Despite all the Liberal rhetoric about consultation, science, and evidence-based, objective decision-making founding policy and legislation, that is not enough time to undertake comprehensive community or indigenous consultations. That is not enough time for thorough safety and environmental assessments, with an analysis of best practices, gaps, and opportunities for improvement; comparison, contrast, and benchmarking against other countries; or local, regional, provincial, and national economic impact assessments and the consideration of consequences. That is because the motivation was actually a political calculation to hold NDP, Green, and left-wing votes for the Liberals in B.C, which helped them win in 2015.

However, Bill C-48, while confined to one geographical area, will have profound negative impacts for all of Canada, on confidence in Canadian energy investment and development overall, and on Canada's ability to be a global leader and contributor in energy regulation, production, technology, service, supply, expertise, and exports to the world.

Reaching tidewater in all directions for Canada's oil and gas should be a top priority for the Liberals, but their track record so far has been to eliminate the only two opportunities for stand-alone pipelines to tidewater in recent history in Canada.

One was the energy east pipeline, which was abandoned after a billion dollars invested and years of review before it could even make it out of the regulatory mess the Liberals created because they changed the rules and added a last-minute, double standard condition for downstream emissions that does not apply to foreign oil or to any other infrastructure in any other sector.

The other was the northern gateway pipeline, which was initiated in 2002 and had actually been approved, with 209 conditions, under the previous Conservative government, in 2014. After a Supreme Court ruling that there was insufficient indigenous consultation by the crown, the Liberals could have ordered additional months and scope for expanded consultation, just as they did with the Trans Mountain expansion application, which started in 2013 and was under way when they announced a complete overhaul for major Canadian energy projects in 2016. However, that option was not offered for northern gateway. Instead, the Prime Minister outright vetoed it, even though it was reviewed under the exact same process, with the exact same evidence, as the other projects the Liberals announced were approved the same day, including Trans Mountain and the Line 3 replacement.

The Liberal government's decision to kill the northern gateway was a massive blow for expanded market access for Canadian oil. It was obviously a loss for energy producers in northern Alberta, for workers in the industrial heartland and Bruderheim, which is where the northern gateway would have started, inside the western boundary of Lakeland, as well as for workers who would have constructed and then maintained the pipeline through operations across Alberta and B.C. It was a loss for potential oil terminal, refinery, and deep water port workers near Kitimat, never mind of billions of dollars in investment and revenue for all levels of government.

However, there is another aspect of that veto of the northern gateway that is just as devastating. Thirty-one first nations and Métis communities were partners with mutual benefit agreements, worth more than $2 billion, in northern gateway, including skills and labour development opportunities.

In Lakeland and around Alberta, indigenous peoples are very active in oil and gas across the value chain: in upstream exploration and production; in service, supply, and technology contracting; and in pipeline operations. They support pipelines because that infrastructure is as crucial to the lifeblood of their communities, for jobs, education, and social benefits, as anywhere else.

Elmer Ghostkeeper of the Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement in Lakeland said, “Equity was offered to aboriginal communities, and with the change in government that was all taken away.... We are very disappointed.” Ghostkeeper pointed out that 71% of the communities along the proposed right of way looked forward to taking part in construction and in the long-term benefits. All that was destroyed by the Prime Minister. They were not consulted about it.

Bill C-48 would put a nail in the coffin of the $7.9-billion northern gateway pipeline and all its employment and economic and social benefits for indigenous and all Canadians, now and in the future.

However, it gets even worse. The $16-billion Eagle Spirit pipeline project could be one of the biggest private infrastructure investments in Canadian history, with meaningful revenue generation, business, employment, education, training, capacity-building opportunities, and long-term economic self-sufficiency for indigenous communities. From Bruderheim to Grassy Point, the Eagle Spirit pipeline project is supported by 35 indigenous communities, every single one along the corridor. Its proponents have been working for six years to secure that support, even from communities that opposed northern gateway, and to exceed regulatory requirements, including exceptional environmental protection, land and marine management, and spill prevention and response.

In 2015, community leaders said what the project meant to them. On behalf of elders, Jack White said, “We like the fact that the Eagle Spirit project put the environment first. Many of our elders are in need and we want our legacy to our children to offer something more that gives them opportunities.”

Youth representative Corey Wesley said, “There are no opportunities for young people in our community. We want a better way of life with real jobs and business prospects so we too can offer our future kids more hope.”

Deputy mayor of the Lax Kw'alaams band and matriarch Helen Johnson said, “Eagle Spirit has widespread support in our community because it shows a real way forward for our members.”

Eagle Spirit's chiefs council says the tanker ban is a government action that would “harm our communities and deny our leaders the opportunity to create hope and a brighter future for their members“, which all Canadians take for granted. The Premier of Northwest Territories said almost the exact same thing about the impact on the people he represents of the Liberals' five-year ban on northern offshore oil and gas drilling.

The Prime Minister often says that the relationship with Canada's indigenous people is the most important to him. He says he wants “an opportunity to deliver true, meaningful and lasting reconciliation between Canada and First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit peoples”. However, for the second time, on a pipeline to tidewater, he is actively denying opportunities for dozens of indigenous communities. They say he did not consult them before he ordered the tanker ban.

The Eagle Spirit chiefs council says that the tanker ban and the creation of the concept of the Great Bear Rainforest were “promoted largely through the lobbying of foreign-financed ENGOs”. The Eagle Spirit chairman says, “they know nothing about our area, they know nothing about our regions. And they're telling us what we've got to do because it's in their financial interest to do so.” It is “without the consultation and consent of First Nations,” which are “opposed to government policy being made by foreigners when it impacts their ability to help out their own people”.

I suggest that actual reconciliation involves employment and business opportunities, social welfare, and benefits through economic prosperity, like what is offered by Eagle Spirit, which would ensure environmental protection and benefits for all of Canada.

Eagle Spirit's chairman says, “This is an important issue for Canadians. If you look at what's happening with the oil industry, Canadians are losing $50 million a day. It's about $40 a barrel over four years in margin to the refineries in the U.S. What other country in the world would give away the value of these resources like that? It makes no sense, and it's harming people in northern Alberta and northern B.C. and the chiefs are going to do something about it.”

He is echoed by B.C. MLA and former Haisla chief councillor Ellis Ross, who says, “The more sickening thing for me is that these people who oppose development in Canada truly believe they win when they defeat a project.... Actually, you don't win. It's just that the United States buys the Canadian product at a discount and sells it on the international market.”

The tanker ban is a deliberate and dangerous roadblock to Canadian oil exports. It is detrimental to the livelihoods of Canadians everywhere. It would put very real limits on Canada's future and standard of living, with disproportionately harmful outcomes for certain communities and regions. The Liberals should withdraw it.

Madam Speaker, when the minister spoke in the chamber a little earlier, he said that one does not need to live on B.C.'s coast in order to appreciate what this particular act would do. My daughter, who is an Earth Rangers ambassador, raised thousands of dollars for the Oregon spotted frog. Our young people understand the importance of protecting our environment. This moratorium would provide the highest level of environmental protection for B.C.'s northern coast.

We have approved pipelines to tidewater. We understand that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Would the member not say that there are employment opportunities and business opportunities available through the multi-billion dollar clean tech industry that is booming, not just here in Canada but around the world?

The Conservatives support responsible development of all kinds of energy, in all sectors, across all provinces for the benefit of all of Canada. However, it is important for this discussion to be fact-based in the consideration of the risks, costs, and benefits associated with this legislation, which was imposed without sufficient consultation with local communities and with indigenous Canadians.

The evidence is that tankers have safely and regularly transported crude oil from Canada's west coast since the 1930s, and there have not been any tanker navigational issues or incidents in about 50 years in the Port of Vancouver. The previous Conservative government implemented a suite of strong measures to create a world-class tanker safety system. It modernized Canada's navigation system, enhanced response planning and marine safety capacity for first nations communities, and ensured that polluters paid for spills and damages on all coasts. Canada has industry-leading regulations with standards that are well beyond those of other jurisdictions on all aspects of tanker safety, pipeline safety, prevention, and response. The Liberals have made additional investments to that end, which we recognize.

Tankers and pipelines are safe in Canada and are critical to future prosperity.

Madam Speaker, a number of people mentioned the wreck of the Nathan E. Stewart, which caused a spill of over 100,000 litres of diesel fuel. It is a disaster. Imagine if a supertanker caused an even worse spill on the coast.

Are the Conservatives not worried about the potential dangers of such spills in high-risk areas?

We should be discussing the legislation that is actually at hand. I am going to read a statement by the nine tribes of Lax Kw'alaams, which oppose the tanker ban. They say:

We have unextinguished Aboriginal rights and title from time immemorial and continuing into the present within the land and ocean of our traditional territories...;

We have protected the environment as first-stewards of our traditional territories for over 13,000 years;

We have and will always, put the protection of the environment first, but this must be holistically balanced with community, social, employment, business and other priorities;

We absolutely do not support big American environmental NGO’s (who make their money from opposing natural resource projects) dictating government policy and resource developments within our traditional territories;

When such projects are environmentally acceptable and essential to meeting our non-environmental needs (such as the Eagle Spirit Energy Pipeline project) such foreign interference serves only to perpetuate the rampant poverty and dysfunction encouraged by previous colonial policies;

We should listen to these indigenous people, who have been in that area, who support environmental protection, and who have managed their land, ocean, and habitat responsibly. They oppose the tanker ban, and they want the Eagle Spirit pipeline.

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Lakeland referenced the decision to abort the energy east pipeline and blamed the government for that. Energy east was being built by the same company, TransCanada, that is also building Keystone. It made a business decision that two pipelines, both shipping bitumen diluted with diluent for export, could not be supported by the market. It picked one, and it picked Keystone. Would my colleague not agree?

Energy is the most regulated industry in Canada by all three levels of government. The fiscal regulatory decisions set by governments are the business decisions made by energy companies in this country. TransCanada had committed to proceed with the energy east pipeline until one month before, after extended delays, rule changes, disbanding the panels, re-appointments, and a last-minute condition of applying downstream emissions to that project. That is why TransCanada abandoned the energy east pipeline, which was the only opportunity into the east coast for shipping to the European market and for securing Canada's domestic supply. That is exactly because of the Liberals' decisions.

Madam Speaker, again, I am proud and pleased to take part in today's discussions about implementing an oil tanker moratorium on British Columbia's northern coast. Canada has the largest coastline in the world, and we are so proud of it.

I had an opportunity here to listen to the debate and hear from the opposition parties. What I heard was a lot of selective information toward building a pipeline and toward tankers, or with regard to the environment, the history, and the moratorium that has been in place on the coast since 1972.

We have taken a fair and balanced approach to this. Through our extensive consultation, we have been able to land in the right spot, when we think about what is in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the efforts made by the government and its partners to reach the decision to implement this moratorium. It is important to remember that, with this bill, the Government of Canada is honouring its commitment to Canadians. This was a commitment we made in the 2015 election campaign. Formalizing this moratorium and improving marine safety are among the priorities set out in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Transport.

We believe it is essential to protect the environment, in this case a particularly sensitive environment in northern B.C., while also developing a strong economy. It is just as important to note that the decision to impose this moratorium is the outcome of vast consultation. I understand that over 75 meetings took place through the Ministry of Transport and the minister's office, as well as committee meetings, and I will talk about some of the other initiatives that were taken for consultation. Our government is committed to pursuing its objectives in a spirit of renewed collaboration. I want to thank the minister and the committee for all the work they did with their stakeholder engagement.

We firmly believe it is essential to maintain and enhance our relationships with the provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, as well as with indigenous groups, in order to bring about concrete positive changes. We therefore undertook these consultations when the government first announced its intentions to adopt a legislative framework to formalize the moratorium.

The first meetings were held in British Columbia, where the minister brought together representatives from non-governmental organizations dedicated to environmental protection, representatives from first nations, and representatives from industry and local communities on the ground. Discussions were held across the country, in Iqaluit, St. John's, Montreal, and Calgary, to name only a few of the locations.

It was important to bring together Canadians with differing opinions on the moratorium. The government took care to include various stakeholders from different settings, namely the marine community, the oil and gas industry, environmental groups, provincial and municipal governments, Canadians from across the country, and first nations. In total, Transport Canada organized 16 round tables and over 30 bilateral and multilateral meetings in order to involve all Canadians in improving marine safety, which includes discussions about the moratorium on oil tankers.

With the aim of extending the discussion further and enabling those who were unable to attend those meetings, because we have such a vast land, Transport Canada set up a web portal. Many letters from Canadians were also forwarded to the department. Overall, nearly 5,000 users visited the online portal. Of them, 330 provided comments or submitted documents. Most of those comments were about the moratorium that is the subject of today's debate. It is obvious that Canadians wanted to be heard, and they were heard. I can assure members that this was done. We not only listened very closely to the concerns of our partners and Canadians about the matter, but we also took steps to meet their expectations.

A number of stakeholders expressed concerns, for example, about the moratorium's potential impact on transporting supplies for the communities and industries on British Columbia's coast.

Resupply is vital to their welfare. It does not matter if it is a tourism operation or any other type of business employing many people in the area, we want to ensure that they continue to be viable and have the resources required for their communities and the industries there. They will continue to receive those shipments of petroleum products. The government ensured that the proposed legislation would allow resupply to continue. We set a threshold of 12,500 tonnes of crude oil and persistent oil in a tanker's cargo spaces. The resupply of communities and industries would therefore not be affected by this proposed moratorium.

Some stakeholders clearly pointed out that they also want to ensure that the moratorium is transformed into action by an act of parliament. That is precisely what we are doing here today. Their voices are being heard. We are doing the people's work.

During the Canada-wide discussions, concerns were raised about marine safety. The stakeholders found that the Canadian Coast Guard lacks resources, including salvage tugs. Stakeholders also raised concerns about the time required to respond to an incident. The oceans protection plan will allay those concerns by giving the Canadian Coast Guard a greater role when it comes to patrols and monitoring the marine environment. The Coast Guard is also going to have increased towing capacity. Through the oceans protection plan, we have created a world-leading marine safety system that improves responsible shipping and protects Canada's waters, including new preventative and response measures. We are investing $1.5 billion into priority areas for ocean protection, investing in oil spill cleanup research and methods to ensure that decisions taken in emergencies are evidence based.

A number of stakeholders also noted that there could be more involvement from the local community and emergency responders. We thought that was great. For that reason, the government is taking steps to further and better coordinate the federal emergency response plan. With greater resource capacity from coast to coast to coast, the government is ready to work with local communities and indigenous groups. New indigenous community response teams will also be established, with training in search and rescue, environmental response, and incident command.

Canada is a maritime nation that was built on a safe, secure marine transport system. The government is dedicated to developing a long-term agenda for marine transport that demonstrates that a healthy environment and a sustainable economy can go hand in hand. In order to implement this long-term agenda, our government is asking for Canadians' opinions and taking concrete action based on that feedback. The government is going to continue working with stakeholders by moving forward with implementing those marine initiatives, including the moratorium, and also of course the oceans protection plan.

In short, the moratorium on oil tankers is a major initiative for protecting British Columbia's coast. This is the right thing to do. A moratorium has been in place since 1972. We have consulted extensively. We have heard from all groups. We do not take this approach and these decisions lightly. These are very serious decisions. We understand the economy and the environment and how they can go hand in hand. Because of that, I implore all those in this House to support this bill and this initiative to ensure that our coastlines are kept safe from spills and we can continue to protect our environment, while also understanding the economy that is vital to the livelihood of all Canadians. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to something that is so important to our country.

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that this is not about safety; it is only about killing northern gateway and Alberta jobs. From Kitimat to open sea, the very narrowest channel is 1,480 metres, which we say is not safe. However, bringing ships under the Second Narrows Bridge in North Vancouver to Westridge where they load up on fuel is 140 metres. This is an area where we are going to bring in more ships, thankfully for Kinder Morgan. Why is it safe to bring ships through a 140-metre narrow passage, but not through 1,480 metres?

Madam Speaker, the member should look at history and understand that this moratorium has been in place since 1972. There is a reason for that.

We believe in science. We believe in an evidence-based approach on this side of the aisle, which is why we have done our homework. The member and the member's party should do their homework, look at history, and understand the reasons for this decision.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for his speech. We share in his belief that there should be a tanker ban on the north coast. We appreciate that this proposed legislation is moving forward, although we believe there are a lot of holes in it.

The member talked about doing the right thing and evidence-based decision-making. However, we know we have not figured out how to clean up raw bitumen. Therefore, I have huge concerns, and I hope the member can square some things.

The Prime Minister said, when the ban was first announced, that “crude oil supertankers just have no place on B.C.’s north coast.” Well, if the member had done his homework, he would realize that we do not know how to clean up raw bitumen and that we have huge risks on the south coast. Therefore, how can supertankers have no place on B.C.'s north coast, but they have a place on B.C.'s south coast and they want to increase tanker traffic sevenfold?

The member can maybe explain to southern coastal British Columbians why their jobs, their environment, are going to be at risk. I would like him to square things up.

Madam Speaker, it comes back again to being fair and balanced. We have heard from the Conservatives on their approach and what they believe. We have now heard from the NDP.

We have taken the approach of consulting with Canadians, listening to everyone, looking at the best evidence and information that is out there for us, and understanding that with Kinder Morgan we are twinning a line. There are already tankers there. There is no moratorium in place, unlike the northern B.C. coast. Also, the member is right. It would mean one more tanker per day that would come into those waters.

Madam Speaker, I heard the member say that the Liberals were doing the people's work, that they were ready to work with local communities and indigenous peoples, and that they have consulted extensively with all people. However, we know that this was written into the minister's mandate letter long before the Liberals ever introduced the bill and had done any consultations.

When we asked members who came and presented at committee, they said they had not been consulted. These were the members who may have supported the moratorium, and those who did not. Therefore, I would like the member to explain how he can make the kinds of statements he did when we heard from every witness that they had not been consulted.

Madam Speaker, it is rich for that member and her party to talk about consultation when they would drive everything straight through without listening to anybody.

I can tell the member that there have been 75 meetings, 25 round tables, a web portal, and over 5,000 submissions, 330 coming directly to the ministry. From coast to coast to coast, meetings took place.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate on this, but I think the bill has the wrong name. It is called the “oil tanker moratorium act” when it should basically be called the “pipeline moratorium act”. That is really what it is all about. It is not about cancelling the ability of tankers to move through a certain region of northern British Columbia. In fact, they will be able to move 100 kilometres off the coast, as they have been doing all along. It has put the last and final nail into the northern gateway project, and every single other potential pipeline project that might go through northern British Columbia.

There are a few points I will raise to add to this debate, including a letter I have from Prasad Panda, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, who is also the member for the provincial riding of Calgary-Foothills. In it, he notes a couple of discrepancies. He notes that Bill C-48 is a flawed piece of legislation, mainly because it contradicts the government's own free trade agreement that it signed.

There are two points that he makes in the letter. He writes that in that free trade agreement, article 301 states, “A Province shall not adopt or maintain any measure that restricts or prevents the movement of goods across provincial or territorial boundaries.” This is what the B.C. NDP is doing to try to kill off Kinder Morgan by harassing it through legal and regulatory means to try to put an end to that project. They are trying to end that and the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy sector, both in my hometown of Calgary, which depends on it, and also across Edmonton and a whole bunch of smaller communities across Alberta and Saskatchewan.

With regard to my second point, he writes, “The Government of Canada shall not adopt or maintain any measure that unduly restricts or prevents the movement of goods across provincial or territorial boundaries.” I think we can make a fine argument here that restricting tanker traffic off a coast like the northern British Columbia coast is that type of restriction on the movement through a territory that the British Columbia government claims as its own. It has a certain amount of environmental regulations that it can or it seems to want to apply. It is interesting that it only wants to apply it in the north, not in the south, when 95% of all tanker traffic happens to be in the southern part of British Columbia.

This particular member of the legislative assembly, a fine gentleman, wrote quite a long letter to the chair of the committee that reviewed this piece of legislation. He also brought to the attention of that committee that this ban, this supposed oil tanker moratorium on pipelines, would be like “banning ships from moving through the Welland Canal or using the port at Trois-Rivières”. It would be like “denying rail and truck access to the Michelin Tire factory in Pictou County”, like “detouring all the traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway and driving it down 92 Avenue in Port Kells”, like “taking traffic on Highway 400 and running [it] all down Weston Road in Toronto”, and like “stopping OC Transpo service to Kanata or GO service to Streetsville.” It would be the same principle. It is not science based, not evidence based; it is the random cutting off of the transportation of goods, people, and natural resources for political purposes.

There is absolutely no reason for it. As far as I know, there have been no spills in British Columbia. Members may want to correct me on that, but I do not know of any spills that have happened off the coast of British Columbia that would make it necessary for us to pass this particular piece of legislation.

I also note that in this legislation, the government is giving itself an exemption under clause 6 that basically states,

for the purpose of community or industry resupply or is otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, if for any reason whatsoever the government believes it should provide an exemption for the import and movement of tanker traffic, it has a complete exemption. There is no real reporting standard there. All it would have to do is make a publication requirement that states,

the Minister must make it accessible to the public on the Internet or by any other means that he or she considers appropriate

I wonder what the minister will think is appropriate when the government provides the exemption. We can imagine how hard the advocates for communities, companies, and tanker companies will push the minister to provide them with particular exemptions and how sought after those will be.

I like Yiddish proverbs, and I have one. It states, “Heaven and hell can both be had in this world.” They can also be had through government policy and legislation. The principle is to protect the environment. That is the window dressing that the Liberals have put on this anti-pipeline bill. However, what they are actually doing when they repeat “the environment, energy, and natural resources”, two sides of the same coin, is only focusing on one part of this. That is their single focus on this point. It is is supposedly the environment, when we know, because of the details of this bill, it will do no such thing. Tanker traffic will simply be moved further to the west. It is not achieving any goals that the government has set for itself. There is no similar ban on any oil tanker traffic anywhere along Canada's other coasts.

Do those environments matter less? Do the beaches in Prince Edward Island matter less than those in northern British Columbia? Do the coasts matter less in Quebec? Do the coasts matter less in Ontario? I do not think that is the case, but I do not see tanker bans being imposed. I do not see pipeline bans being imposed. That is what leads me to say that this particular piece of legislation is all about northern gateway. It is to kill it off, and that is what the government intends to do through this particular piece of legislation.

The tankers that go through the southern part of British Columbia right now are in the 80,000 to 120,000 dead weight tonnage. If this were truly about tanker traffic, and there were worries about how many of these tankers are moving through a particular geographic region, then the regulatory process would be simplified to ensure the maximum size tankers could actually come through different channels as safely as possible.

If the government wanted to do it that way, it would ensure that ultra-large crude carriers, ULCCs, were able to navigate certain regions, doing so safely, with the necessary tugboats to pull them out in case they have security problems. It would not impose a random ban on geographic areas, pushing tankers further out into the ocean. That does not achieve any environmental goal I could easily name. It would also kill off economic jobs that northern gateway and other pipeline projects could provide in the future.

What it actually would do is sterilize an entire region of northern British Columbia from any type of development in the future. It would basically ensure that no company would ever propose a new pipeline project running through any of those communities, regardless of how many indigenous communities support it, regardless of how many of them are onside.

As the member for Lakeland has said, there are many indigenous communities that would depend on these energy and natural resource jobs of the future. Over 500 communities all across Canada depend either on energy or natural resources jobs.

When oil, natural gas, coal, or any type of mineral is extracted, it has to be moved to a market. It does no good to sit on a large pile here at home. It has to be moved to the buyer. That is done through a port, through the rail system, and through tankers. Those are the requirements of ensuring that the economy is looked after, and that is what the government is failing to do with Bill C-48.

This bill would kill off any future pipeline projects. It sends another chilling signal to the business community in Canada that we are not open for business. We have had the largest flight of capital from the natural resources sector over the past two and a half years. We are at the lowest level since 2010, and it just continues.

Energy east was killed off by the government. Northern gateway was killed off by the government. The government neglected Pacific Northwest LNG. It has neglected Alberta's energy sector. It has done everything possible to ensure that every single new piece of red tape would strangle the industry, and it has done a great job at it. This is one thing the government has been quite exceptional at, strangling the industry and putting tens of thousands of Alberta energy workers out of work permanently, with no reasonable expectation to return to work in the field of their speciality, in the field where they have spent years obtaining their education and working professionally.

Back home in Alberta, we have spent a generation trying to convince people to move to Alberta in the first place. British Columbia is beautiful, but we just wanted people to stop in Alberta and have a professional career with us. We spent a generation convincing people to move there, but we also spent a generation convincing young Albertans, men and women, that it was worth getting into the energy sector because there would be jobs well into the future and they could work anywhere internationally. They are not going to have that.

Bill C-48 is a nail in the coffin of every single future pipeline project. Every company that is even thinking about running a pipeline through northern British Columbia, or anywhere in fact, will think twice. All of their money could be lost, or there could be a random moratorium, a ban, or a cancellation of their project.

I cannot support this bill. It is another chilling signal to the business community and to energy workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia that the government is not on their side.

Madam Speaker, a challenge with pipelines is to find a balance. As we have seen in the debate so far, some people are very upset that any pipeline could be built and some people want every single pipeline to be built. Our government is looking to find the right balance, as well as balancing that with the needs of the people, the economy, and the environment.

We have approved the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are also putting in a moratorium on tankers in ecologically sensitive areas.

Is there any area where the member would see a need for balance, not that this is right or wrong, but in a general sense, a balance of issues, where there could be good and bad, something we want to promote and something we do not want to promote? Does the member want us to promote every pipeline under every circumstance?

Madam Speaker, maybe the member heard my Yiddish proverb that heaven and hell can both be had in this world. I think we are experiencing the other side of that proverb, which is that government has repeatedly gotten it wrong. Trans Mountain is the only line going through. With the length of time it has taken, from the first moment the company thought it up and went through the approval process, and it is not even built yet, it has been almost as long as World War II, quite literally. That is how long. It has taken six years to get to this point. Northern gateway was cancelled. Pacific NorthWest LNG was cancelled. Energy east was cancelled.

We weep for those thousands of energy jobs that are gone. How many companies or young entrepreneurs were thinking they had new interesting projects they would like to proceed with? How many teams of young professionals out there were thinking they would propose projects but just shelved them instead? Who weeps for the jobs that were never even created?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have this tendency of listing off projects where the proponents decided for market and internal reasons of their own to cancel a project. I think it was a travesty that the Liberal government gave a permit to Petronas LNG to build on Lelu Island, but the Malaysian state-owned enterprise, Petronas, decided not to proceed with LNG there. The member cannot lay that at the door of the Liberal government. I wish he could. I would respect the government more had it looked at the evidence that the Petronas LNG facility would wipe out our Skeena salmon fishery.

The same claim has been made about energy east over and over again here today. TransCanada made its own decision that it could not support it as there was not a market for two pipelines for the export of raw bitumen. Therefore, it picked Keystone, which has approvals from Canada and the U.S., although in the U.S. there are court cases still trying to stop Keystone, and I hope that they are successful.

The jobs that I would like the member for Calgary Shepard to consider are the jobs in Canada that we used to have when we had 40 refineries in this country, when we used to regard our own domestic requirements as a market instead of only creating those overseas.

Madam Speaker, on the refining capacity in Canada, it is true that a lot of refineries have started to close down, but it is for economic reasons. There is opposition to a carbon tax on large emitters. It happens to be the refineries and upgraders that are some of the largest emitters. If we want to refine the product, it is not free, either in GHG emissions or carbon, or NOx and SOx, as we call them. It is not free. Either it gets done in Canada or it does not. When we impose huge regulatory costs, when we impose a carbon tax, when we basically wrap a project up in so much red tape that the people who are proposing it on behalf of shareholders and other Canadians who are investing in it to get a return, we are telling them not to do it as they will not get their money out of it, and they will not be able to retire on this investment.

Madam Speaker, I could have asked my colleague this question any time, but I want the public to hear the answer.

The Pacific Pilotage Authority and the British Columbia Coast Pilots, some of the very best in the world, are charged with protecting our coasts. They did a full bridge simulation on bringing the ships down off the B.C. coast. They said it is so safe that ships can transit the area without tugboats. They are proposing to do two as part of the Enbridge project. Can the member tell me why that is not adequate?

Madam Speaker, the simple and easy answer is to leave it to companies, people, and entrepreneurs to innovate and find solutions to problems out in the real world. When we come before the House and consider legislation like Bill C-48, that is not a solution. It is just more red tape to kill off energy jobs.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to participate in the debates we have in this place.

Before I write debate speeches, I generally like to do a bit of background research. This can often be very revealing. This is a very important debate, important for many different reasons, a few of which I am going to touch upon today.

When I did my background research for this bill, I came across a Globe and Mail article from 2015. The headline read that the Prime Minister's promises to aboriginal people are “feared to be unachievable”. I then read a different headline from one year later, this time from APTN National News. This headline read that the Prime Minister “backs away from election pledge on First Nation veto”. We all know that is exactly what the Prime Minister has done because that is what he likes to do. He likes to promise things that he generally has no intent to deliver, because promises look good and promises sound good. When one's image is everything to one as a politician, this is where one ends up.

Why do I mention these things? I mention them because here we are with the Prime Minister proposing an oil tanker ban off the west coast of British Columbia. Actually, no, that is not correct. The Prime Minister is actually proposing to increase the tanker traffic off the west coast. It is the north coast where he is proposing to ban all oil tankers. Some see that as a contradiction. Some have told me that they view this bill as the Prime Minister acknowledging that there is a risk to tanker safety, and that is why he is proposing this ban.

However, some of the same people question if the Prime Minister acknowledged this risk in one place, why is this risk then being ignored in another? This is why those who oppose pipelines are so enraged with the Prime Minister, because they believe he says one thing while doing another.

It is not unlike the environment minister. Her favourite talking point is that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The minister can continue to make this comment hundreds of times a year, but for those who oppose pipelines, they will never see them as supporting the environment. That comment enrages them, which at the same time, is politically damaging for the Liberals, a point that I suspect many Liberal members of Parliament from B.C. know all too well.

Back to the subject of this debate, the proposed tanker ban. We know another one of the Liberal government's favourite talking points, and also an election promise, was to make science-based decision-making. Let us look at some of the science from a safety perspective related to tanker traffic off the coast of northern British Columbia.

Can the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation provide spill responses in this geographic region? Yes, it can. Can the Pacific Pilotage Authority, a crown corporation, provide the same world-respected marine pilots to navigate these vessels in that very same region? Again, yes, it can. Could companies like Seaspan provide multiple tugboats to assist with docking, as it currently does in other parts of British Columbia? Yes, it could do that.

Has there ever been an oil spill in the area from an oil tanker that has been under the supervision of these service providers? No, never, not in 50 years. There is a perfect service and safety record. I mention these things because from a science and safety-based approach, tanker safety can be safely provided in this region. To be clear, I will commend the efforts the Liberal government has taken to increase marine spill response in the event that the Trans Mountain pipeline will be built.

The bottom line from my perspective is that the tanker ban seems to be entirely politically motivated because the science and the safety are proven in that there has been no tanker oil spill in 50 years. Our system of tanker safety has multiple overrides. Ultimately, in this case, this is a political decision, and political decisions are the reality of governing.

I merely point out that this is a political decision because some want to see this as a contradiction from a Prime Minister who wants to increase tanker traffic in one area of B.C., and then claims it is unsafe and bans it in another. This contradiction from the Prime Minister can ultimately undermine tanker safety. Given that we have a Prime Minister who is doing everything he can, at least in words, to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, I felt that adding clarity to the safety question would help the Prime Minister get the Trans Mountain pipeline built. I am certain he will want to thank me for that later.

Why should we care about this proposed pipeline, then? Yes, there is a huge loss of jobs, investment, and revenue for all, but it is more than that. I am fully aware many support this tanker ban, much as many oppose the building of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Indeed, that opposition is very much alive in this place as well. I submit it exists even within the Liberal caucus.

However, getting back to the reason for the speech, this Prime Minister has made serious promises to Canada's first nations, and here is a secret I am going to share with this place: some first nation communities fully support resource development, because they recognize the opportunity. They see how jobs and employment can help transform a community. They know with their own-sourced revenue they can build things that often add to the social fabric of their community.

We often talk about the rights of indigenous peoples and their communities, but what about the rights of those indigenous communities that support and want resource development within their traditional territories? Why are their rights so often ignored?

In this case, we even have a lawsuit. At the inception of this lawsuit, 30 different first nation bands joined together to stop this tanker ban from going forward. They call this proposed tanker ban an unjustified infringement of their aboriginal rights and title. They point out that this proposed tanker plan would thwart their ability to create economic support for their community through the development of an oil export facility. It is hard to argue with that fact, because it is true. Does anyone in this place disagree with these first nations communities?

Again, I ask why these first nations' rights are being ignored by the Liberal government. We know it is not about safety. We know we actually have a world-class response when it comes to oil safety. We know it can be done safely and we know first nations have that right.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to rise again in this place. I gave a full presentation earlier in regard to some concerns I have with the bill. The bill represents a political decision by the Prime Minister. By putting in place a ban in this one particular area, it is actually only going to exacerbate the problem in other areas.

I met with first nations elders and chiefs, along with the member of Parliament for Cariboo—Prince George in his riding shortly after the bill was tabled. They were shocked that the government would have tabled legislation without first speaking to them. Since that time I have also met with first nations that want to see economic development areas. They want to see some heavy oil exports run so that their communities can benefit from that resource development.

This is an area where we have to come to grips when we have a Prime Minister who says that he needs to hold consultations and build social licence and at the same time tables legislation that does neither. In fact, it makes many of those first nations that are seeking to develop their own economic resources so they can move to own-source revenue very cynical and skeptical not only of this government, but of government in general.

When I was first elected to Ottawa, one particular politician, who had just retired, gave me some advice. He said to me, “Dan, you may think Ottawa is around 3,000 kilometres away, but to us back home, it's more like 30,000.” That view is felt even more closely when we start going into northern regions of British Columbia, where the actual communities themselves see this as an excellent way to develop their own own-source revenue, to train, to bring in new expansions for jobs.

When I meet with many of the first nations leaders in my riding, the number one priority they have is for their children to learn skills. Instead, rather than taking advantage of these kinds of things, we have a Liberal government that seems intent on running counter to that. We have to figure out how we are going to deal with that, because there are communities that may not like resource extraction, whether they be first nations or otherwise, but we cannot allow just a few to make decisions on behalf of others in these rural and remote areas.

I look forward to questions and further debate on this issue in this place.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 fulfills a commitment the Liberals made in the last election to put in a moratorium. The government has been very clear in terms of how important our oceans are. We have seen literally hundreds of millions of dollars over a number of years invested in protecting our oceans, our marine life, and so forth. At the same time, we have also seen a government working with indigenous people and many different stakeholders. Unlike the previous Harper government, which was not able to get a pipeline to tidewater, we were able to do that through a process that respects the importance of consultation, respects the environment, and respects the national interest.

Surely to goodness the member across the way would recognize that the bill fulfills a commitment made by the Prime Minister for a moratorium, while at the same time on another file, the pipeline, we were able to proceed with that too.

Mr. Speaker, I try not to use this word too often, especially in a generalized way that should apply so broadly, but I cannot believe the arrogance of some of these Liberals. Earlier today during question period, the Minister of Immigration told a member several times to never refer to or talk about the previous government's achievements in certain areas on immigration.

I just gave a speech, and the member was in the chamber, in which I said that first nations in the area were not consulted and felt cynical that the government would move forward with legislation and basically say, “This is how we are going to do it”, particularly when they had said earlier they wanted to develop resources and see heavy oils shipped out for the development of their own resources. The problem with the Liberals is they like to say things that make people feel good, things like, “We need to consult" and "We need to keep promises”, yet cynically, they do the opposite.

I know it is not all of the Liberals. I know there are members out there who support our natural resources being developed and want to see indigenous people not only be consulted but actually participate. I stand with those Canadians who want to see all of us get to our highest attainment as far as economic development is concerned together.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for pointing out the incredible hypocrisy from the members on the other side of this House, as well as pointing out the concerns of our first nations communities in British Columbia who would have pointed out that no consultation took place before this bill was introduced.

I am wondering if he would agree with me that the government should maintain strong regulations to allow for the safe passage of all vessels through all Canadian waters, rather than impose measures that target the development of a single industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think it will come as no surprise to many in this place that not only do I agree with the member just in broad principle, but the Conservatives also believe that the product of an individual or community's labour should be able to be traded freely with other people. Whether that is free trade through international free trade agreements, opening up new market access and seeing that products get safely to market, or whether it is the trade of fine Canadian wines from the Okanagan, we want to see that market access established and we want to see people be able to come forward.

We have first nations who want to participate in the Canadian economy. They see it as a way for them to grow their economy and provide their own education. Let us let people choose their futures. Unfortunately, the government is simply being prescriptive and saying that in certain areas, it will allow opportunity and in certain areas it will actually ban it.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act. A north coast tanker ban has been a legislative priority of the NDP for many years, and we welcome the fact that the Liberals are finally taking action on this issue.

The bill calls for a ban on tanker traffic carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil on the northwest coast of Canada. It makes exceptions for refined oil products, like diesel and gasoline, in order for coastal communities to be resupplied. Therefore, right off the top, the bill does nothing to prevent refined oil spills, like the Nathan E. Stewart disaster, from threatening our coast.

We are concerned that Bill C-48 also gives the minister broad arbitrary powers to exempt vessels from the ban, and define what fuels are covered by the act. We hope the government will implement constructive amendments to limit ministerial power and increase spill response resources.

I have had the good fortune and privilege of travelling to and working on the north coast of B.C. numerous times. I have been on that wild coast going around the eelgrass beds of Flora Bank when I was working on the environmental assessment for the Ridley Island terminals. I have worked on charter sailboat natural history cruises around the coast of Moresby Island, acting as a natural history resource person. For a young guy from the desert grasslands of the Okanagan Valley, those were really life-changing experiences.

It is truly a wild coast. I remember one ferry trip to Haida Gwaii across Hecate Strait. The ferry was taking green water on the third deck, the restaurant deck. Sand was coming up from the bottom of Hecate Strait, in the middle of the strait, on to the boat's decks. Large semi-trailer trucks were being tossed around on the vehicle decks. A lot of damage was happening. It was quite an experience. I have really experienced the wild and crazy weather that can beset shipping traffic there.

Not only is it a wild coast, it is really a rich coast. We heard a lot about the fish resource, especially salmon, from my colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. For millennia, first nation cultures have relied on this diversity, this richness, and the local economy today continues to rely heavily on fisheries and tourism. I want to talk about the rich natural heritage of that coast.

The northern B.C. coast is one of the richest in the world. There are great rivers, like the Stikine and the Skeena, that carry nutrients from the interior to the coast, where they mix in rich estuaries with marine waters. Currents, like the Alaska current, bring up more nutrients to the surface from the bottom sediments of the continental shelf. The cold waters of the Alaska current hold high concentrations of oxygen. The result is a natural diversity that is truly unbelievable. It is truly amazing. This topic may never have been brought up in this chamber before, but British Columbia and the British Columbia coast have the highest diversity of sea stars, starfish, as many of us call them, in the world. Members may not have known that. When one is kayaking along the coast of Haida Gwaii in Burnaby Narrows, one can see leather stars, bat stars, sunflower stars, and many more. It is incredible. That is just one example of that diversity.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have marine mammals, whales, dolphins, porpoises, fur seals, sea lions, seals, and sea otters, the mammal that brought Europeans to the British Columbia coast and really fuelled the European exploration of the coast and the first contacts with first nations people because of their fine fur, fine fur that cannot withstand a drop of oil or the animal will die, because those animals require their fur to be in pristine condition.

For many years, the whales were harvested in great numbers off the coast. Their numbers declined almost to extirpation and extinction. However, there have been some good-news stories. The humpback whales and the grey whales have now recovered in a dramatic fashion, and we can now see hundreds or thousands of them over a season along the coast.

Off the west coast of Haida Gwaii down to Cape St. James and other places, the land drops precipitously off into the waters. There is very little continental shelf, and sperm whales come close to the shore. If people are down to Cape St. James and they look up at the big cliffs that go straight into the water, they see thousands and thousands of seabirds, thousands of common murres and puffins. British Columbia has three species of puffins, and the Atlantic coast only one. I am looking for some Atlantic MPs, who only have one species on the Atlantic side, but there are three on the Pacific coast. They are all there in British Columbia.

There is another little relative of the puffin called the ancient murrelet. I am going to go into birds and I hope people will find it educational. Half of the world's population of the ancient murrelet, about half a million birds, breeds on Haida Gwaii. This is a little seabird that eats crustaceans in the water, such as shrimp. They nest in burrows in the forest and the young go off into the ocean when they are just tiny little downy things. Again, they are very susceptible to any pollution.

At the north end of Vancouver Island, which is the south end of the area that this bill covers, is Triangle Island. Triangle Island has another species of seabird breeding on it in immense numbers, the Cassin's auklet. There are about a million pairs of Cassin's auklets that nest there. Again, these birds are indicators of the richness of what is in the water, and we have to protect them. There are albatrosses that come from Hawaii to feed on the B.C. coast and then go back to Hawaii to feed their young.

I would like to switch gears now and talk about the history of this oil tanker moratorium. In the late 1960s there was actually oil drilling off the B.C. coast, but in 1969 there was a big blowout at Santa Barbara that sent shockwaves through the industry, and drilling was stopped. Facing that threat and the new shipments of oil coming south from Alaska, in 1972 the federal government instituted a moratorium on oil tankers off the northern B.C. coast, but it was never put into law. This is the first attempt to do that.

Plans for drilling rose to the surface again in the 1980s, but two incidents put an end to those plans. One was the Nestucca barge, which collided with its own tug off the coast of Washington just before Christmas in 1988 and spilled about a million litres of bunker C. That oil from the central Washington coast spread north and covered the entire west coast of Vancouver Island all the way down into Oregon, about 1,000 kilometres of coast. The Nestucca spilled less than one-tenth of the amount of the limit that we are talking about here today in this bill.

Not many people have heard of the Nestucca, because three months later the Exxon Valdez went down in southeastern Alaska, spilling 40 million litres of oil. That disaster killed 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 seals, and 250 eagles. The Alaska coast has never been the same.

We can see, therefore, why many British Columbians are concerned about repeated plans for bulk oil transport along the B.C. coast. The tourism industry there is worth more than $780 million a year and creates more than 40,000 jobs. Fishery is also key for the local economy, with $100 million input into the economy from that industry. There are 2,500 people working in the fishery and more in processing. Therefore, I am happy to support Bill C-48. It would put into law a policy that has been in place for almost half a century. The NDP has supported the moratorium through those years.

As I mentioned before, we are concerned about several aspects of the legislation. First is the limit of 12,500 tonnes of oil allowed for community and industry supply. The vessels that supply these communities are now well under 1,000 tonnes in size, so it is unclear why such a high limit was put in place. We would like to see that lowered significantly.

Second, we are concerned about the amount of ministerial discretion in this bill, which would allow the minister to exempt vessels and define what fuels are covered.

However, we will continue to support the bill, as it is a step in the right direction that protects the British Columbia coast.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that the NDP as a whole is fairly supportive of the legislation. We believe it is long overdue. It is a commitment we made in the last election campaign. Fulfilling this particular commitment in this legislation is a positive step forward.

One of the issues that has come to light over the last while is with regard to the transportation of oil and getting oil to tidewater. A great deal of consultation has been done in appreciating that we have to take into consideration the environment, indigenous people taking part in the consultations, and doing our homework, and at times there is a need for opposition parties to state what their opinions really are.

I am curious about the member's concerns regarding Trans Mountain and getting oil to tidewater. Does he know where the national New Democratic Party stands on that particular issue? Would there be a situation in which the New Democratic Party would support it?

Mr. Speaker, the federal NDP has some real concerns with the Kinder Morgan project. One is the tanker traffic increasing sevenfold on the south coast. There is a concern about first nations consultation. I believe there are seven court cases going ahead on first nations consultation. A lot of groups think it was a total sham.

We saw what happened with the northern gateway pipeline. That court case was decided in favour of the first nations who thought that consultation was a sham. There are concerns about the pipeline going through the British Columbia Interior. There are concerns that if we build that pipeline, we would never even come close to meeting our climate targets.

There are a lot of concerns. Some of them are related to the reasons New Democrats support this tanker ban, which I just talked about. We are very concerned about the Kinder Morgan project. We do not think it is the right way to get oil to markets in Canada, so we are not supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, here is the reality: rather than introducing evidence-based regulations to ensure that marine shipping of all resources everywhere in Canada is safe, the Liberals are moving with a full moratorium for political purposes, with the full support of the NDP. It would appear that Venezuelan oil in Quebec is okay, Saudi Arabian oil on the east coast is okay, and Canadian oil in Vancouver is okay, but not in northern British Columbia. I want to ask the member why.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has always stood for using our own oil for our own purposes. If we upgraded our bitumen into synthetic crude, refined that synthetic crude into gasoline and diesel, and used it throughout the country instead of importing crude oil from Venezuelan, Nigeria, or wherever we are getting it from, Canadians would be very much in favour. We would be creating jobs, we would have greater energy security, and the amount of traffic on our coasts going either way would be much reduced. That is the way we should be moving.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-48.

While it is a proposed act that deals with the prohibition of oil tankers on the British Columbian coast, let us be honest and just call it what it is: part 3 of the Liberal government's plan to phase out the oil industry.

Let us recap. Part 1 is the carbon tax, which is just basically taxing investment and new jobs out of existence. Part 2 is to slowly kill off any pipeline to get product to tidewater. This part has been well under way since 2015. In fact, killing the oil and gas industry has been one of the few things that the government has achieved that will placate its militant left in British Columbia for votes in the next election, as my colleague just mentioned.

The Prime Minister said that he misspoke when he said that he wanted to phase out the oil sands, but we know this is just simply a mistruth. We can see it from his actions and the actions of his government. His environment minister is prepared to unilaterally impose a carbon tax and dismisses those opposed to this job-killing tax grab as climate change deniers. She has even committed to battling in court any province that tries to block the carbon tax, but on pipelines her answer is to please not take it to court. Her strategy is to ask those committed to the destruction of the oil industry to allow for a pipeline in exchange for a carbon tax.

There is no commitment to fight for the oil and gas industry, and one could say that the government is simply calling on paid protesters and saying “Well, I guess we'll allow that to occur.” No one is actually calling those paid protesters “job deniers”. As for the NRCan minister, who should be a champion of the natural resource industry here in Canada, he is actually just AWOL.

Here is the reality. The Liberals are beholden to an anti-oil activist group to keep their seats in the Lower Mainland and their hopes of picking up additional seats in Vancouver Island.

To those in the oil industry in my hometown of Fort McMurray who have lost their jobs due to the ineffectiveness of the Prime Minister on the energy file, the Liberals offer yet another slap in the fact to them. In Fort McMurray and across Alberta, we have people losing their homes. We have people committing suicide. We have an economic crisis happening, and the government could not care less. The Liberals would rather appease protesters and others who would kill jobs than stand up for those who actually want to go to work. Perhaps the oil workers left unemployed by the government's lack of leadership could find a summer job as an anti-pipeline protester now, since those jobs are available.

While the Prime Minister is happily jetting around the world for photo ops, his labour minister happily approved a grant to an anti-oil NGO to hire students to “stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project”.

It pays only $15 an hour for a summer student and so will not necessarily pay for someone's mortgage or their home. As a former labour minister myself, I can say that it is a problem overall that we are against well-paying, great jobs, the type of jobs that Canadians need and should be receiving, while we are creating temporary jobs for individuals who want to kill an industry that is doing outstanding work for Canadians.

The Prime Minister refuses to use federal power to have a pipeline, built but he is happy to use them to impose a carbon tax. This country has not seen anything like this, and with so much division on the issue, since his father was prime minister.

Regarding, as I said, part 3 of his plan, the tanker moratorium, I will offer some suggestions on what can be done to help ensure we get our product to tidewater, and once at tidewater, to market.

First, increase the penalties for those engaging in acts of violence or vandalism designed to disrupt natural resource development. Second, ensure that those who provide support for the aforementioned resource disruption that disrupts the natural resource industry are actually charged. Third, classify environmental lobbying as a political activity to ensure transparency in their funding. This would prevent the Liberals from funding organizations that are acting in direct opposition to the scientifically reviewed, approved, and legal activity. It might stop the Minister of Labour from approving temporary jobs for summer students who want to protest against these projects and shut them down.

If the Liberals are really serious about getting oil to market, then they would pull this bill today. They would institute tough penalties, take real action to ensure that pipelines get built, and support getting the product to market once it arrives at tidewater.

However, they are not. The Prime Minister will talk about building Kinder Morgan while he funds opposition groups fighting against it. He will ban oil tankers from carrying that product to market, and he will impose a carbon tax on everything.

The Liberals' three-point plan to phase out the oil industry is well under way. In my opinion, 2019 cannot come soon enough, when we will form a new Conservative government, fix this mess, and allow Albertans, like my family and our family friends, to get back to working hard at their jobs, which they deserve.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the member across the way has no problem making these comments, given the type of information on the record. She talks a great deal about the province of Alberta, and justifiably so. This government has been focused on Alberta. If we take a look at what Albertans, and Canadians as a whole, have been able to accomplish, we see that Alberta is leading the way on many different economic fronts today. I would like to think that it is because of co-operating with people and because of government policy. It is making a positive difference, and 600,000 jobs have been created in Canada, with Alberta virtually leading the way.

The member talks about killing the industry. Harper did nothing. He did not build one inch of pipeline to tidewater. Within two years, we were able to get more things done than the Harper government was able to do in 10 years. It is almost as if the Conservatives believe they have a right to provide misinformation because the member feels that Alberta is Conservative somehow. I have news: Alberta is changing. Alberta is recognizing that our government has the right priorities, priorities that are establishing and reinforcing our middle class and adding more value to the economy. Alberta is one of the provinces that are leading our country.

Does the member not agree that Alberta has actually been doing a lot of good things that have ultimately led to its leading the country on issues like employment growth?

Albertans are doing great things because Albertans are great. It has nothing to do with the government opposite, which is trying to kill jobs and continues to do so.

I encourage the member opposite to maybe go and visit some of these Alberta communities where people are losing their homes, where individuals do not have jobs, and where individuals actually want to work hard. Your government seems to think that protestors are the way to go. In my hometown, when someone shows up and decides to protest against someone getting work, people take issue with that.

The government wants to support the oil and gas industry in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The government says, let us bring in that foreign oil, but it will never, ever support Albertans, its own people. On this side of the House, we support Albertans and all Canadians, and we support their getting jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite tries to give the impression that Alberta is not doing all that well compared to the rest of Canada. Sadly, under the Harper government we saw massive job losses and a massive number of bankruptcies and so forth. The economy has been getting better and the middle class has been getting healthier because of good, positive policy coming out of our government and because of the fine work Canadians are doing.

Many of the issues the member across the way talks about are not only in Alberta; they are across Canada. Here is my challenge to the member: Will she not give Albertans credit for the hard work they are doing, given the degree to which they are actually leading the country on many positive things? It is not all that bad in Alberta. Our government will continue to build, whether through infrastructure, investment in the middle class, or something like the Canada child benefit. There are so many positive things. We did get the approval to go forward in getting oil to the Pacific Ocean, which is something Harper never did.

Mr. Speaker, I would just encourage the member opposite to have a reality check. He might want to go out and visit a few Albertans to know what is really going on.

The fact of the matter is that Albertans have experienced some very tough times. I would encourage the member opposite to actually have a reality check. Maybe he should watch a little more reality TV; he might get the message.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, which would ban oil tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia.

I want to start by saying that this is a very poor name for this bill. It would be better labelled the “let's destroy Canada's opportunity for economic growth and prosperity, including for indigenous people” act, because that is exactly what this bill is going to do.

The government likes to talk about how the economy and the environment go hand in hand, and the importance of its relationship with indigenous peoples. I would like to illustrate how this bill is in fact a triple fail. It would actually hurt the economy; it would do nothing in terms of supporting the environment; and certainly many indigenous communities are very concerned.

Undeniably, the government's approach is incoherent and illogical. It is the furthest it could be from fact-based decision-making. Bill C-48 is one part of a bigger puzzle, in terms of the very incoherent approach the government is taking.

It is more rooted in government ideology. All we have to do is look at what the Prime Minister said last week in France, that he was sorry he could not phase out the oil sands more quickly. The Liberals, ideologically, want the oil sands phased out. All other pieces of legislation, whether related to pipelines or tankers, go back to their desire to take away the prosperity from our oil sands.

Venezuelan oil in Quebec is okay. Saudi Arabian oil on the east coast is okay. Canadian oil in Vancouver is okay, but it is not okay in northern British Columbia.

The Liberal government just released, on April 26, “Our Response to British Columbia’s Policy Intentions Paper for Engagement: Activities Related to Spill Management”. The government is telling British Columbians how it will be able to protect British Columbia, which I actually agree it can do through its marine protection plans.

This is a 62-page document. In talking about how the government is going to protect British Columbia, just a little further down the coast, I think the question we need to ask ourselves is, if it can protect a little further down the coast, what is wrong with a little further up the coast? I think the same principles would apply.

Building on the existing safeguards, we are developing a marine safety system that rivals any in the world. The system draws on over thirty years of scientific research in spill prevention and response—including specific measures to ensure the safe transport of diluted bitumen.

Canadians can be assured that our coastline will benefit from a world-class marine safety system thanks to the implementation of the Oceans Protection Plan.

Then it talks about the science and the research.

If the government is confident that this could be done in Vancouver, then it could absolutely be similarly confident that the same protections could have been put in place, and it did not actually have to go forward with the tanker ban. That is one area of incoherence.

An article in the Calgary Herald looks at some statistics. These are really important statistics, from Statistics Canada's “Monthly Merchandise Trade Report—February 2018”, which tracks Canada’s international balance of trade.

The article states:

Hidden within those summary numbers was the revelation that imports of energy products into Canada advanced by a material 15.4 per cent to $3.4 billion, the highest level since November 2014, with the largest share of those imports originating from the U.S.

The importation of crude oil and bitumen advanced 15.4 per cent, with imported refined petroleum products up by 24.1 per cent, the latter due largely to increased imports of gasoline into British Columbia....

A recent study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute, using 2016 data, indicates that substituting Canadian oil wherever possible using space on existing pipelines, railcars and ocean tankers, could reduce foreign oil imports into Eastern Canada by a whopping 47 per cent.

Whether it is the energy east pipeline, because of the resistance in Quebec, or the northern gateway project, we are destroying not only Canada's ability to get the price it should be getting on the world market, but our internal domestic capacity. We have lots of imports, and we are cutting off our opportunities at the same time.

While a precarious B.C. government opposes oil pipelines, the Trudeau government’s avowed transition away from fossil fuels appears perversely to be directed solely at penalizing Canadian producers.

What is this? We are having more coming in from the United States; we are having more coming down the St. Lawrence seaway from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia; and we are not willing to let our own workers benefit, who produce in some of the most environmentally sensitive ways.

The final point I want to make before I conclude is about our indigenous communities. The Liberals talk about the importance to consult, but they did not consult. They plunked down a moratorium with very limited discussion with the first nations that would be most impacted by these decisions.

This is one of the chiefs, on the day of the moratorium: “'I am just administering poverty,' despite sitting on some of the world’s richest oil and gas deposits, he said. 'I want the ability to share the wealth that has been taken out of our territories for the last one hundred years.'”

Another article stated:

“The reality is it is the only way forward. There's nothing else," [said] Calvin Helin, an executive with the Eagle Spirit Energy....

Helin said there are few economic alternatives for many rural and remote Indigenous communities where there are unemployment rates in excess of 90 per cent.

“Ordinary First Nations people want the same opportunities every other Canadian aspires to.”

Ellis Ross stated:

We were right on the cusp of First Nations in my region being able to look after themselves.

We were just starting to turn the tide on that opposition to everything. For the first time, since white contact, we were ready to take our place in B.C. and Canada. Instead, B.C. is not going to exist pretty soon in terms of investment. That is how worried I am.

We have a moratorium that is actually just shifting carbon pricing. We are getting more in from the States. If we can protect our coast in Vancouver, we can certainly protect the north with some of our best class pilotage in the world. This is an arbitrary political decision made by the government, which would certainly hurt not only indigenous communities but Canadians across this country.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier when reflecting on the last election campaign, we have a government that made a commitment, which is now being fulfilled. The New Democratic Party supports this piece of legislation, and the Green Party representative supports it. It seems to me that the Conservative Party continues to be out of touch with what Canadians expect of government. It is not listening. This moratorium has wide support in all regions of the country.

Would the member not, at the very least, acknowledge that we can have a moratorium and still have pipelines bringing product to market? I am not too sure why the Conservative Party wants to tie the two of them together. It is almost for the sake of opposing and for no other reason.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I can. I met with some of the proponents of Eagle Spirit, and they suggested that all we have to do is have that pipeline veer up into Alaska. Then we can be putting it in tankers there. That would achieve nothing in terms of what the government is trying to achieve, absolutely, but what is the sense in taking opportunities away from Canadians.

All of a sudden, this is a commitment from the Liberals' platform. Well, how about we balance the budget? How about we show some fiscal responsibility? I think there are some things the Liberals could do. If you are going to show faithfulness to your platform policies, then I think you have a lot of work to do.

Mr. Speaker, the oil tanker ban on British Columbia's northern coast is very popular among British Columbians. A survey found that 79% of the province's population supports a ban on oil tanker traffic along the coast.

That being the case, I wonder why the Conservatives, including Conservative MPs from British Columbia, would rather defend the rights of oil giants than stand up for British Columbia's coastal communities.

Mr. Speaker, I think what British Columbians want is to get their products to market, and in a safe way.

What I illustrated earlier with the paper that was just released by the government is it has committed to doing just that. It can do that in Vancouver with its oceans protection plan and with its commitment. A session was put on last week by the other place about our world-class expertise in terms of pilotage. That is what British Columbians want. They want to protect their environment. The government has said it can do that in Vancouver, and I certainly believe it can do that in the north.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague highlighted why this moratorium is undermining Canada's long-term prosperity. We have run into a situation where we have a government in place which, step by step, is undermining Canada's competitiveness, chasing away foreign investment, chasing away jobs, and chasing away talent. Perhaps the member could comment on a number of things the government has done that really hurt Canada's economic future.

Mr. Speaker, we could look at, I believe it is about $87 billion in direct investment that has flown out of our country. Also, I only have to look at the east coast and the fact that we are importing oil from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria. Surely, Canada should be getting a good price for our oil, and our people in Alberta should have the jobs and prosperity, and enjoy the benefits of the rich resources they have.

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to the opportunity to engage in this debate.

I am going to frame this discussion in terms of Canada's competitiveness and our future, what our future will look like for the coming generations if we continue to go along the path of sending terrible signals to the global investment community. My comments will actually focus on how Bill C-48 is poorly thought out and really does not reflect the reality of Canada's resource economy.

I am a proud Canadian, but I am also a very proud British Columbian. Unlike many of my colleagues in this House, I have had the chance to hike many of the different remote wilderness areas of British Columbia. I have had the chance to hike the Chilkoot Trail, where one hikes out of the coastal rainforest in Alaska into the drier interior area of British Columbia and follow the trail the early gold miners took to the Yukon gold fields. I have had a chance to hike the Bowron Lakes. In fact, we canoed the Bowron Lakes, 12 lakes connected with portages, where one is almost guaranteed to see moose and bear along the way. I have had a chance to climb the Rockwall and Skyline trails in the Rocky Mountains. I have had a chance to hike in the Cathedral Lakes area outside of Keremeos, British Columbia. Also, in the northeast corner of British Columbia, there is the Muskwa watershed, Gathto Creek, and Pine River. British Columbia is an awesomely beautiful province, a place we as Canadians can be very proud of. It is a legacy that has been left to us.

Anything that would threaten our coastal areas, any threat to the marine life in our oceans, is something I take very seriously. We know oil tankers have been plying our coastal waters for many, many years. Over those years, how many crude oil spills have actually happened in British Columbia waters? Does anybody want to guess? Zero. There have been zero crude oil spills as far back as we want to go. Why? Because we have superior pilotage, and we have tankers today that are double-hulled as opposed to single-hulled to make sure if they strike something, that object does not penetrate the hull. We now have a world-class marine oil spill response, and we love the government for doing that. That is good. We want to protect our coastal areas.

What we do not want to do is undermine Canada's prosperity as we do this, so we have to be careful how we implement policy. We have to ask ourselves what the Prime Minister's motive is behind imposing a moratorium on tanker traffic off our west coast. By imposing a moratorium, we are preventing Canada from getting its oil and gas products to foreign markets where they fetch the best price. What is the motive? Well, we could just follow the Prime Minister around the world on his global travels from costume to costume, leader to leader. Guess what? We found him in France, where he thought he was safe and he started badmouthing Canada's resource sector. More specifically, he badmouthed Canada's oil sands and lamented the fact that he had not been able to phase out the oil sands by now.

There is the hidden agenda. We have a Liberal government that wants to phase out our oil industry. It wants to put all kinds of impediments in the way of our resource sector to make sure Canadians do not get the maximum dollar that they should for their products.

The Prime Minister goes so far as to pretend he is one thing in British Columbia, where of course he is the champion of the environment whenever he visits, but when he travels to Alberta of course he suddenly becomes the champion of the energy sector.

In fact, what he did in Alberta was to say, “If you impose a massive carbon price on your residents, you'll be able to get the social licence to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built.” What happened? Alberta followed suit. It trusted the Prime Minister, which is something I think Canadians are now very wary of. Premier Notley trusted the Prime Minister when he said, “Hey, a carbon tax and you'll get your pipeline to tidewater”. Well, do we have a pipeline to tidewater? Today we have protesters, no leadership from the Prime Minister, and court challenges. What happened to the social licence? It is bogus.

Along the way, this moratorium on tanker traffic off our Pacific coast is just one more nail in the coffin of completely undermining Canada's competitiveness within the global marketplace. Every day that goes by, Canada becomes less and less competitive, especially vis-à-vis our partner to the south, the United States. I will mention a few things that this government has already done. If imposed, a moratorium on offshore drilling in the north undermines prosperity, because we leave resources in the ground that could have fetched good dollars, but we leave them there.

On the massive carbon tax that Canadians are now being expected pay, members can imagine how that undermines our competitiveness as we layer tax upon tax. Foreign investors wonder why they would invest in Canada and not go to the United States where the corporate tax rate was dropped from 35% to 21% and it got rid of all the red tape. The Liberal government funds a Canada summer jobs grant to an organization that is actually organizing and protesting against the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Prime Minister publicly says that it is going to build, but then gives cash to oppose it. That is our Liberal government.

Then, of course, there is Bill C-69, the new regulations that the Prime Minister would impose on resource projects. The bill would add more discretionary powers to the minister to extend and suspend timelines. There would be longer time frames. There would be new criteria added, including upstream and downstream impacts. This is how crazy it gets. The government would impose criteria, conditions, upon our own oil and gas producers that we do not impose on those who ship gas from foreign jurisdictions like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela. The oil that comes from those countries into Canada right now does not have to comply with any of those criteria, but our own homegrown producers of that product, which is the cleanest in the world, and is subject to the toughest conditions in the world, have to comply with those criteria. We wonder why we have lost 100,000 jobs in our economy. It is because of policies like that. Over 87 billion dollars' worth of capital has fled Canada because of the poorly thought out policies of the Liberal government.

As Conservatives, and the word “conservative” implies conservation, we believe that the highest environmental standards have to be complied with. When we extract our resources in Canada, whether it is mining, oil, or gas, Canadians expect that it be done to the highest environmental standards. Canadians also understand that those resources that lie in the ground represent huge opportunities for economic growth in our country, for jobs, for long-term prosperity, and for funding the programs that governments want to provide to Canadians. It is absolutely critical that moratoria, like the one the Prime Minister is trying to impose on our west coast, not proceed, because at the end of the day, Canadians will pay a very significant price for that. Quite frankly, if in fact the Prime Minister cannot get the job done, he should step aside and let the adults take over. Let someone else take over, someone who really understands the economy, someone who understands the environment, and the appropriate balance between the two.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague speak about how the Harper Conservatives were committed to the highest environmental standards. I arrived here in 2008, and I remember, because I actually read that in 2007, the Conservatives came out with their sectorial approach. Those of us who have been here a while know about this famous sectorial approach. It promised, sector by sector, to really handle climate change and take care of the environment. Seven years later, in 2015, nothing had happened. They engaged two of the six sectors they talked about.

I would like to know how they think Canadians are going to believe them on environmental issues, when in the 10 years they were here, they were totally unable to take care of their environmental commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer that question. Under the Harper government, we actually found the right balance between the environment and the economy. We did not see $87 billion worth of capital fleeing Canada because of ill-thought-out policies.

It is time we pointed the finger back at our Liberal friends. Do they remember when the City of Montreal officials said to the Prime Minister that they wanted to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. Of course, we all expected that our wonderful green Prime Minister would step up and say no. Guess what. He approved it. Tonnes and tonnes of raw sewage went into the St. Lawrence, and these Liberals are standing here claiming that they have the high ground on the environment. That is pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from British Columbia speaking about the environment. He said that the Conservatives had the highest standards in terms of protecting the environment. I live in coastal B.C., and we saw what happened recently to the Heiltsuk First Nation with the diesel spill. We saw the Simushir drift ashore in Haida Gwaii. We saw a bunker spill in English Bay. I could go on and on.

We are ill-equipped, because we have gutted marine response. We have closed MCTS centres that were invaluable and were based on local knowledge. They consolidated five stations on the west coast into two under the Conservative government's watch. I am sorry. They still have not told us how to clean up raw bitumen or even if there is any science behind cleaning up raw bitumen.

The member talked about this being the highest standard. If this is the highest standard, clearly we are ill-equipped to deal with what tanker traffic we currently have, never mind expanding tanker traffic. There is a good reason why a moratorium is being proposed for the north coast. I actually think we should be looking at all tanker traffic on the coast until we resolve these issues with evidence-based science and with a spill response program that could actually do the job, because they clearly did not do that during their mandate.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague obviously has not read this legislation. This is about tanker traffic. This is a tanker moratorium. Tankers carry crude oil, not bunker fuel and not diesel. They carry crude oil. This legislation would do nothing to solve the spills he made reference to.

Any time there is a spill, it is a terrible thing for our environment. We acknowledge that, and occasionally that will happen. Yes, we did have one in English Bay. It was not a crude oil spill. It was bunker fuel that leaked into our pristine English Bay. It was cleaned up. Today that bay is as clean as a whistle.

I would also say this. Our Conservative government never gutted the response times to spills. What we did was occasionally find efficiencies where we could consolidate resources and get a bigger bang for the buck. That is what Conservatives do. We are efficient with our dollars, something the Liberals are still learning.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks, particularly for his great overview of the history of safe tanker traffic off Canada's Pacific coast. We hear a lot of rhetoric and clearly a lot of confusion from some members on regular marine accidents, where a vessel might spill some of its diesel or its own petroleum products. That is very much different from an oil tanker, which is designed to transport diluted bitumen or a range of petroleum products.

There have been no accidents on the Pacific coast. Multiple governments, of both Liberal and Conservative stripes, have continued, over the last few decades, to modernize marine navigation and regulatory regimes and safeguards. I think that unblemished record will not only continue but has been enhanced by Canada's world-class regime.

My remarks on Bill C-48 are going to touch on two things. When Canadians go to the polls in 2019, they are going to assess the Prime Minister. Before, they just knew him as the celebrity son of a previous prime minister. He had no record, no record in the private sector, no record in the non-profit sector, no record in academia, and no record, really, of any note from his days as a member of Parliament in this place. Therefore, he ran and won on a celebrity record.

Now they are going to judge him on his performance, whether it is broken promises on the deficit, whether it is hundreds of billions of dollars of investment fleeing Canada, or whether it is our competitiveness, which literally every bank and economic forecaster in recent months has said is at real risk with changes in the U.S., with Canada increasing taxes and the U.S. lowering taxes. They are going to judge him on his record.

Nowhere is the current Prime Minister's record worse than on first nation issues. There is some laughter coming from the Liberal benches. The Prime Minister has a tattoo of the Haida Nation on his shoulders. However, I cannot say one thing he has done for that nation or any other nation. The missing and murdered indigenous inquiry has been a disaster from start to finish. There has been no clarity for the families that were promised certainty. There have been departures, with people leaving. They are now asking for twice as much time and twice as much budget. The Prime Minister promised healing and to drive us toward reconciliation. However, he has not done that.

One might ask why I am speaking about this when it comes to the tanker moratorium and Bill C-48. I will quote a chief from the Buffalo Lake Métis, Elmer Ghostkeeper, who, when the Prime Minister unilaterally, and not following science or regulatory approvals, cancelled the northern gateway pipeline, and this moratorium bill is essentially a way of blocking that from ever coming back, said, “Equity was offered to aboriginal communities, and with the change in government that was all taken away.”

Another leader from that area, from the Gitxsan Nation, Elmer Derrick, said, “The fact that the Prime Minister chose not to consult with people in northwestern [British Columbia] disappointed us very much”. In fact, 31 bands across that route were going to be 30% equity holders in that line with Enbridge. Unilaterally, the Prime Minister of Canada took away that economic opportunity that could have eliminated poverty in many of those communities within a generation.

It is sad that the Liberals are heckling, in light of some of the language coming from first nation leaders. That would not suggest a reconciliatory attitude from those members.

This is a pattern that started back in 2016 with the Prime Minister. In fact, on his first state visit to Washington, he signed on to an accord with the United States and with President Obama that put a ban on development of 17% of Canada's Arctic land mass and on 10% of Arctic waters. How much consultation was done in conjunction with that? It was zero.

Days after, the Premier of the Northwest Territories confirmed his disappointment that there was no consultation, that the first nations and Inuit of the area were not consulted. Who was trotted out by the Prime Minister's office? It was the president of the WWF Canada, David Miller, the former mayor of Toronto. That seemed to be the only organization in on this ban on our Inuit development opportunities in the north. I would note that a year earlier, the president of that organization was Mr. Butts, who was a principal adviser to the Prime Minister.

There was zero consultation with Inuit and first nations leaders in our Arctic and in northwest British Columbia but lots of consultation with insiders and, I would say, groups on the left. Why is that important? It is because now we see the Prime Minister's record on economic development coming home to roost. He unilaterally cut the northern gateway project. He killed energy east through changes to regulation. Now Trans Mountain is on the precipice.

Today marks one month remaining until Kinder Morgan may be withdrawing its capital investment, having watched two and a half years of the Liberal government over-regulating, over-taxing, and becoming less competitive and with uncertainty on whether it can even get a twinning of its existing line completed.

What is going to happen now with Bill C-48? If Trans Mountain fails, and the government is doing its best, even funding protestors through Canada summer jobs, to make that happen, this bill will preclude 31 first nations from actually coming up with an alternative to northern gateway through some of their traditional territories.

The Prime Minister is a master at rhetoric, but he is a disaster at delivery. He talks about consultation and reconciliation and does none of it. I stress that 17% of the land mass in the Arctic was struck away without a phone call. That not only violates the spirit of reconciliation, following what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission outlined, but violates Canadian law and case law on the duty to consult, going from the Sparrow decision to the Delgamuukw decision right through to last year's recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Clyde River matter and the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation.

Consultation has to be meaningful to those affected, particularly when it is about the adverse impact of a decision. That is what the duty to consult, in Canadian law, with our first nations means. The Prime Minister has failed at every juncture on that duty. He did not consult Chief Derrick, Dale Swampy, or Elmer Ghostkeeper when he unilaterally took away an opportunity for 31 first nation communities to provide opportunities for their people. Where was the consultation?

Where was the consultation with our first nation, Inuit, and territorial leaders when, with the stroke of a pen in Washington, he struck away the opportunity for them to provide and make decisions on their own territory? Now, with Bill C-48, and with Kinder Morgan teetering on the brink, he is going to block yet another opportunity for Canadians and first nations to chart their own destiny.

As I said earlier, apart from the tattoo, I have not seen much commitment from the Prime Minister. In fact, his lack of consultation is insulting. I worked on these issues before becoming a parliamentarian. I was not a bouncer. I was not doing drama. I was working with the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business on trying to provide opportunities by working with the resource industry. I have been blown away by some tremendous first nation leaders from across the country who are providing an opportunity for a new story for their people.

We have a Prime Minister who has killed northern gateway and energy east, and Trans Mountain is on the brink. I call him the serial pipeline killer. Not only do we have that happening to getting our resources to tidewater on our west coast, but the government is now going to block the opportunity for a new option with this moratorium, ignoring the fact that there has already been a voluntary 100-kilometre exclusion zone between Washington State and Alaska since 1985.

Once again, a government that talks a lot about reconciliation and building trust does not even have the courtesy to talk to the first nation communities that are going to be horribly impacted by their decisions.

The next apology I hear in the House of Commons I would like to come from the Prime Minister on his terrible decisions with respect to our first nations.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing how the member across the way tries to give a false impression. Never before have we had a Prime Minister who has done such a fabulous job in trying to build and re-establish a relationship with first nations people.

For years in opposition, for example, I would say to the then Prime Minister Harper—

Mr. Speaker, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, for years we were saying we wanted to have a public inquiry on the murdered and missing women and girls, but Harper closed a deaf ear to it. Within months we had one established. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to all the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What did Harper have to say about it? Nothing.

When it comes to the issue of the pipelines or the moratorium, this is something on which, after serious consultation with Canadians, we went into an election and we made a commitment. It is a fulfillment of an election commitment that we are witnessing. Only the Conservatives continue to be out of touch with reality and what Canadians expect a good government to do. Only the Conservatives want to oppose the bill, and for what reason? It is because they just want to oppose the bill. They disagree with having a moratorium and they try to come up with ideas as to why it is not a good government.

This is a government that is actually building the pipeline. This is my comment and we will let the member respond to the comments.

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded by the member's comments, and not by the volume and number of words he speaks, because he is famous for that. I talked about how the Prime Minister has provided zero consultation with respect to his unilateral decision on northern gateway, zero consultation when he signed away Inuit rights to self-determination on 17% of their lands. The member comes back to me and suggests that their consultation was the election. I guess that is what he is saying.

I would bet that the Liberals have not consulted on Bill C-48 with the 31 first nations impacted by the northern gateway decision, but the member seems to think the election writ period qualifies as consultation with our first nations. I would suggest that is not meaningful. I would suggest that falls short of Supreme Court decisions.

The second apology I would like to hear in the House is from that member for that suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the member for Durham's renewed interest in indigenous issues in this country.

He refers to those 31 indigenous communities that have signed agreements. I have looked at the list of those so-called agreements. As a matter of fact, the 31 agreements that he refers to are secret, confidential letters of undertaking and memoranda of understanding. I have been in this business for 30 years, and those are not agreements, to my mind.

Second, does the member find these so-called agreements consistent with what the Supreme Court has said in the Haida Nation case? On that case, the Supreme Court said that on important matters—and I would suggest that pipelines are important matters—we need the full consent of indigenous communities. Does the member agree?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou because he has shared his perspective in the House on many occasions, and it is appreciated.

What I would suggest to him is that a 30% equity stake in a pipeline is a substantive agreement. Now, he is suggesting that they are not real agreements, but an equity stake in a project of that size is significant, and for him to discount it is simply wrong in law.

The second thing I would point out to him, if we want to debate Supreme Court cases, is that I would refer him to more updated cases from the Supreme Court, which I cited, from the Clyde River decision and the Chippewas of the Thames from last year in the Supreme Court. The decisions said that the duty to consult must be meaningful—and obviously the Prime Minister's zero consultations do not qualify as meaningful—but that consultations are limited in scope.

I have said clearly that there is no duty to veto projects in Canada. That does not help either first nations or the development of our resources for all Canadians. We have to engage in pragmatic, positive dialogue that builds partnerships with first nations. I think the member would agree with that, and it would agree with the Supreme Court.

My highlight tonight is that the Prime Minister's unilateral actions in our Arctic and in northwestern British Columbia fall short of the Supreme Court's expectations on Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying a few things about pipelines in French. There are francophones in Alberta, and pipelines are an important issue for the entire country.

An American journalist by the name of Michael Kinsley once said that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. That is an interesting thought. It might be rephrased a little to say that a gaffe is when politicians say what they actually think. When we look at some of the comments that have been made by ministers and by the Prime Minister about the energy sector or various other issues, these one-off comments are often dismissed as gaffes or mistakes. We are told not to worry, that the tweet was deleted and the minister provided clarification.

However, when we start to see a pattern when comments are made, it is worth reflecting on this Kinsley quote. These are gaffes in the sense that these are cases when people are actually letting the curtain slip and are showing what their real agenda is with respect to our energy sector. For example, in 2012, the Minister of Democratic Institutions tweeted that it was time to “landlock” Alberta's tar sands. That is pretty offensive language, but it came from an MP who is now a minister in this government. The minister once said that she wanted to landlock Alberta's oil sands. Clarifications were provided and the tweet was deleted, but that person is now sitting in cabinet, and it makes people wonder what her views are with respect to Alberta's energy sector. Actually, we do not really need to wonder, because she has already told us what her views are in that regard.

More recently, the Prime Minister stated that the time had come to phase out Canada's oil sands. He has also said that Canada was not doing well with people from my part of the country in key management positions.

Such remarks, which are very disparaging towards Alberta, also indicate opposition to energy development and the desire to landlock our energy resources, and are sometimes deemed blunders or gaffes. I think they are truly revealing. They are gaffes in the sense that sometimes the Prime Minister and cabinet members let a comment slip and say what they are really thinking.

We have a government here that is attacking our energy sector, and people in my constituency and across the country realize that. The government has all these fancy talking points to try to hide what it is doing. The Liberals will say in one part of the country with one kind of audience how they are stopping energy development. These things will come out about what the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet really think. On a different day, the Liberals will say that they are getting the pipelines built and that the previous government did not build pipelines.

Let us correct the record on that. I am very proud of the record of the previous government when it comes to delivering for the energy sector. Not only did we say no to a carbon tax and not only did we approve the northern gateway pipeline, but it was under the Conservatives that four pipelines were built in this country: the TransCanada Keystone pipeline, Enbridge's Alberta Clipper, the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop pipeline, and Enbridge's Line 9 reversal. Every single pipeline project to tidewater that was proposed under the Conservative government was in fact approved. For the minister to say that more could have been built, well it beggars the imagination how Conservatives could have approved pipeline projects which at that time had not even been proposed, but we put through a rigorous process and we approved pipeline projects that were proposed. We built projects. We approved the northern gateway.

We got it done, and we established an environment in which people wanted to build and invest. They saw Alberta and Canada as a place with the kind of taxation and regulatory environment that made it a good place to invest and create jobs. That is why we had the best economic record, the lowest unemployment, and the best fiscal performance in the G7 under Stephen Harper.

Since members across the way want to talk about the record of Stephen Harper, on all of these fronts, support for the energy sector and strong fiscal management, that is a record very much worth defending. We can line that up against the terrible performance of this government running massive deficits during good years, rather than using fiscal stimulus only during economic downturns.

The Liberals want to run deficits all the time, whereas Conservatives take a balanced approach. We believe in balanced budgets over the medium and long term. We believe in establishing the conditions that allow all sectors of the economy to succeed, including the energy sector, the auto sector, and the forestry sector, not pitting them against each other, but rather to survive, thrive, and excel together, recognizing their interdependence. The steel industry benefits from the energy sector because pipelines have to be built. Indeed, there are other parts of the country outside of Alberta that benefit. I know there is a plant in our leader's riding, but there are other regions of the country, as well, that benefit from the steel industry that serves the pipeline industry.

We see with the government an attack on the energy sector. What has it done when it comes to pipelines? With northern gateway and what we are talking about today, the Liberals killed the northern gateway pipeline. They are proposing today Bill C-48, an arbitrary bill that says we cannot export from northern B.C., from this established exclusion zone.

Let us dig into this a little. They say that we cannot export Canadian oil from this exclusion zone, yet we have Alaskan tankers taking oil as close as they can come to the coast, outside the designated area, but quite close in principle. Canada cannot benefit from that economic activity. We cannot export, but the same activity and potential theoretical vulnerability is very much still there. We have tankers coming into the St. Lawrence Seaway and on the east coast that are bringing foreign oil into Canada for import, yet we cannot get the energy east pipeline built because the government has introduced regulatory hurdles that make it difficult for the project to proceed. It killed the energy east pipeline indirectly. It has killed the northern gateway project quite directly.

However, the Liberals cannot explain why it is somehow okay for tankers to import foreign oil into Canada and not okay for Canadian oil to be exported by tankers from Canada. They cannot explain why there is some environmental risk that is unique to Canadian oil being exported that does not apply in the case of oil from other countries being carried very close to international waters. They need to answer that question in order to justify putting forward this bill.

They say they are in favour of the Trans Mountain pipeline. They have no plan to build it, but they say they are in favour of it. In the opposition, between the Conservatives and New Democrats, we have a different view on virtually every pipeline question, but one area where we agree is that the government is making strange unjustified distinctions. It claims to be in favour of the Trans Mountain pipeline and is doing nothing to build it, yet it is completely opposed to the northern gateway pipeline.

Obviously, if we tell people that pipelines are dangerous, then there will be people in the Lower Mainland who are going to ask why the government is pursuing one policy in northern B.C. and a completely different policy on the Lower Mainland.

We are clear in the opposition about the strong safety record of pipelines. We are clear about the benefit of Canada being an energy superpower, which means we seek to create jobs here in Canada by promoting the development and export of Canadian energy resources, by taking advantage of those export opportunities, because other countries are not going to wait for us.

There are countries in Asia, for example, Japan, which imports most of its energy resources. Canada could benefit from a stronger relationship with Japan by selling our energy resources to Japan. Right now most of its energy resources come from the Middle East through the South China Sea. There is a big opportunity for Canada to get in the game through helping Japan with its energy security and building a better partnership. I just use that as one example.

Canada should be getting in the game and it should be growing economically. We need to end this Liberal attack on Canada's energy sector. We are proud to oppose this bill.

Steven MacKinnonLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Speaker, when I hear Conservatives talk about the energy sector, one of the things that strikes me is that there would be no energy sector in Canada without the Liberals. There would be no energy sector in the Athabasca oil sands without the Liberals, because Pierre Trudeau's government put measures in place to encourage development, and, through using the tax system, made sure that development occurred. Furthermore, under the Chrétien government, Anne McLellan made sure that there were accelerated writeoffs for capital investment. Now under this Prime Minister, we have achieved the appropriate balance between the measures from my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and others, especially with respect to carbon pricing, to ensure that we meet our environmental goals and environmental obligations to the world, while also making sure we get our landlocked and other resources to markets and to diverse markets.

The thing that strikes me about the Conservatives is that in the last decade, we have had woefully under-prepared Conservative governments, in both Alberta and federally, presiding over a collapse in the world price of oil, allowing the employment situation in that province to decay, and showing themselves to have no clothes when it comes to managing a resource economy.

It is in fact Liberal governments, which are the progressive governments in Canada, that are managing this resource economy back to prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I know there may be close runners-up, but that is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard said in the House of Commons. The member says there would be no energy sector in this country if it were not for the Liberal government, as if the Liberals had the wisdom to plant the oil in the ground or something. There would not be an energy sector in this country if it were not for the hard work of men and women in Alberta who do the necessary work in energy and who take the risks to get at the resource.

I would never have the arrogance to claim that energy development was solely because of the Conservatives, and yet the members opposite have the arrogance to take credit for absolutely everything. The sun would not rise in the morning if it were not for Liberal governments, no doubt. The Liberals are applauding, of course.

Let us be very clear: Liberal policies have consistently attacked the energy sector. If the member really wants to defend the record of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the national energy program, I invite him to come to Alberta. He can stay in my office, and he can hold round tables there to tell people in my riding, and in the ridings of Edmonton Centre and Edmonton Mill Woods about the great legacy of Pierre Trudeau. That is a message he will have a hard time selling.

One thing we have not heard is an explanation from the Liberals or the Conservatives with respect to how they are going to clean up raw bitumen. In fact, the Conservatives talked about their great track record in protecting the environment. Ask coastal people what that looks like. The Nathan E. Stewart spill was cited earlier. Ask the Heiltsuk what the spill response was like in that case, or in the bunker fuel spill in English Bay.

In fact, if we look at the Conservative track record, we can note that they closed the Kitsilano lifeboat station and they consolidated the MCTS stations on the largest coast in Canada, which is the 25,000-kilometre British Columbia coast, from five stations to two. In fact, they closed the Comox station, which is the only station above the tsunami zone, and the Liberals followed through with that even though they said they would not do it. They talk about modernization, and yet they have spent more on overtime than it would have taken to run those stations right now.

Perhaps the member could explain how the Conservatives are going to clean up raw bitumen, because I can tell members right now that the Liberals' two tugs are not going to be able to pull it off. People in British Columbia do not feel safe and confident.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can do that justice, but I will say to my friend, who is a member of Parliament from B.C., that every week or maybe every couple of weeks, I know that he flies to Ottawa from B.C. and goes back to his constituency. All of us use energy resources. All of us have to use energy resources. It is part of living in the modern age. It is part of living in a country this vast. Therefore, I think it behooves us to look for every opportunity we have to improve the effectiveness, the safety, and the security of that use.

Dramatic steps have been taken and continue to be taken in that direction. However, I think other members who support the bill need to answer these questions: What about the import of energy resources? What about the fact that we have Alaskan tankers just off the coast in B.C.?

Let us take the steps that we need to take together to look for opportunities and to enhance safety and security. I think that process has already happened and is continually happening. It is unrealistic to say that we can simply shut it out, because if it is not Canadian oil, it is going to be international oil, which raises all of the same questions.

Therefore, let us benefit from it, let us prosper here in Canada, and let us also look for opportunities to improve at the same time.

There is a content creator on YouTube who does these great videos called “honest trailers”. He discusses what movies should actually be talking about when they do their trailers. I would like to do the same with Liberal bills, because quite often we hear these grandiose names.

For example, for the budget, I would rename it the “Dude, where is my infrastructure budget?”, because no one seems to know where the infrastructure money went. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer could not locate $7 billion of it. I do note that of the $7 billion, he was able to find that it was costing Canadian taxpayers $700,000 of spending for every job created.

I also called it the “Honey, I sank the kids” bill, because $100 billion in added debt is going to stick to our children and our grandchildren in the coming years. However, I stuck on a different name, the Vantablack bill. Vantablack is the darkest substance known to man, so I called it that because of the lack of transparency in the budget bill. In fact, it is so lacking in transparency that even a supernova could not bring light to it.

An issue with the budget bill was, for example, that the finance department refused to respond to either us or the Parliamentary Budget Officer about some five-year spending projections. There was vote 40, which the treasury board president has brought forward, which will allow him to spend $7 billion without any oversight from committees, Parliament, or votes once the money has been done. The government that brought us an $8 million hockey rink is going to be given $7 billion without any oversight or transparency.

With Bill C-48 there could be a lot of names, but I am going to call it the “hypocrite bill”. The name “hypocrite bill” could also be applied to a lot of other bills. For example, the government talked big on military spending, but it is not mentioned once in the budget. The Liberals also talk about helping the middle class, yet burdened it with tax hikes and hundreds of billions of dollars of added debt with no mention of how it will ever be paid back.

As well, the government brags about a gender-balanced cabinet, but they give all five junior ministries to women. No government since the Trudeau Senior government has given all five of the junior ministries to women.

The Liberals killed energy east by constantly changing the goalposts and requiring upstream and downstream emission considerations. At the same time, they have given hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to their friends in Bombardier to pay out millions of dollars in bonuses, by the way. Apparently Bombardier jets do not emit emissions. The Liberals have given millions and millions to Ford motor companies because apparently Ford cars now run on pixie dust.

Let us look at the general hypocrisy around Bill C-48. Do not let anyone be fooled. It is not about banning tankers; it is about killing the northern gateway pipeline once and for all and killing Alberta jobs.

The Liberals like to talk a lot about human rights, but they blocked Alberta oil, the cleanest, most ethically produced oil in the world, to bring in oil from some of the worst human rights-abusing countries in the world. We bring in oil from Saudi Arabia, where there are some of the worst oppressions of women and of the LGBTQ community.

The Liberals brought in oil from Nigeria, where the government will murder a person for being gay. Think about that. We are bringing in oil from Nigeria and giving them money. Instead of creating Alberta jobs, we are getting oil from people who murder gays just for expressing who they truly are. We bring in oil from Angola, a country that Human Rights Watch highlights for its heavy government oppression. However, we buy their oil and block Alberta oil.

This is really interesting. Just last week, the Liberal government banned the famous Angolan human rights crusader Rafael Marques from Canada. We have open borders to all those fleeing the tyranny of the U.S., where one million Canadians still live. I hope they are going to flee as well. The Liberals will allow open borders for that, yet an award-winning human rights crusader from Angola is banned by the government. However, we will buy their oil.

The Liberals talk about evidence-based decision-making, so let us look at the facts on tanker safety.

We allow tankers into the Vancouver harbour to pick up oil in Burnaby from Kinder Morgan, where it currently is. We are planning, if Kinder Morgan gets built, to move that up to one freighter a day. That is perfectly fine. The Liberals approved that.

We allow what is called an Aframax tanker to move under the Second Narrows bridge in North Vancouver or Burnaby, where there is a width of 137 metres across the narrows.

The government now also says that a tanker moving through a width of 1,400 metres, through the Douglas Channel from Kitimat to the open seas, is not safe. Not only is the Douglas Channel 10 times the width of underneath the Second Narrows Bridge, but it would be escorted with three pilots for the entire passage. That is something we do not do when bringing in Venezuelan oil, Saudi Arabian oil, or Nigerian oil on the east coast. It is something we currently do not do when we bring in ships through the much narrower passage from North Vancouver to Burnaby.

The TERMPOL document for northern gateway added many other safety measures, such as radar on Gil Island, and more response gear, which we also do not offer for the tankers coming in through North Vancouver or the east coast.

Let us talk about the hypocrisy of the government's empty statement on nothing being more important than the nation-to-nation relationships. We heard in the government operations and estimates committee that no industry does better in Canada than the energy industry in working with indigenous groups, indigenous business, and providing jobs and prosperity to indigenous people of Canada. Who does the very worst on engaging them? It is the Canadian government.

This is what the first nations are saying. Elmer Ghostkeeper of the Buffalo Lake Métis said that they and other first nations are disappointed by the political decision, not the evidence-based decision, but the political decision, made without their input. Mr. Ghostkeeper said that 30 bands were looking forward to the shared prosperity that northern gateway would bring, with $2 billion in set asides.

Again, let us remember. It is Suncor, Syncrude, Enbridge. These are all the companies that were named in the government operations and estimates committee as companies that do the very best of any industry in providing prosperity, jobs and opportunities for first nations, and we are throwing it aside.

Chief Derrick of the Gitxsan first nations said that the Prime Minister did not even want to hear from supportive bands.

The government will consult with every U.S.-financed radical environmentalist group on pipelines in the industry. It will even take taxpayers' money to give to these radical environmentalist groups, saying, “Here, take some taxpayers' money from Alberta, from all across Canada, and go out and work against the Canadian interest.” It is working against what the government has said is in the national interest. Will the government listen and consult with first nations? No, of course not.

I want to talk about some of the safety issues. B.C. coast pilots are some of the very best pilots in the entire world. They have a safety standard for shipping off of B.C. that far exceeds what we do on the east coast. I want to talk about their record.

Since 2007, the very worst year for incidents has been a 99.94% success rate. There was not a single issue of an oil spill from tankers since Kinder Morgan was built 63 years ago. Not one. On regular shipping, the very worst year was 99.94%. In 2017, it was 99.97%. They have gone above and beyond, as I mentioned.

With the portable pilotage units they put on their ships in case their ships piloting or GPS goes down, they can control it as well. They spend $600,000 a year in training for the pilots. As I mentioned, they have a perfect record for moving liquid bulk vessels of over 40,000 dead weight. These are the experts.

They did a computer program when northern gateway was being considered. The experts said that moving ships down, even without pilots, would be perfectly safe. However, the plan was to include three pilots. Here we have the experts saying it is perfectly safe without all the added measures, and they have offered to put on these additional measures to make them extra safe. The government shot it down.

Bill C-48 is not about coastal safety. If it were, the government would shut down the east coast and Vancouver as well. This bill is all about killing Alberta jobs, and about killing once and for all the northern gateway pipeline.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of comments the member across the way has made.

Again, when we take a look at this particular bill, I see it as a positive bill that reflects the wishes and desires of a majority of Canadians in wanting to see the moratorium put in place. In that sense, it is a positive piece of legislation. I believe the Conservatives are going to be voting against it. They seem to want to vote against it because they are tying it to the pipeline issue and indigenous consultations. There have been consultations that have taken place. The pipeline is going to be built. This does not seem to fit the Conservative narrative of trying to divide and conquer.

It seems to me that the Conservatives are not in touch with what Canadians really want the official opposition party to be doing on such an important issue which is dealing with our oceans. Is the member not concerned that the Conservative Party continues to be out of touch with what Canadians want to see on such an important issue?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of being out of touch, I would love for the member to ask Canadians if they support giving taxpayers' money to radical environmentalist groups that kill jobs in Alberta and that want to kill the very pipeline this government says it supports.

The Liberals say they support building Kinder Morgan, and then they go out and give money to a U.S.-backed environmentalist group, and say, “Take this money from taxpayers in Alberta and B.C., and go and stop the Trans Mountain pipeline.”

If the member wants to talk about being out of touch, that is a perfect example from the government, and I thank my colleague for bringing that point up.

Mr. Speaker, my friend talked a lot about jobs and his concern about jobs where he lives. Of course, he is going to be fighting for the people in his community just like we are standing up for our communities in coastal British Columbia.

We have concerns. We had a spill in English Bay, a bunker spill, and we had a diesel spill up in Heiltsuk Nation. I have talked about this. I have talked about the gutting of the MCTS centres on the coast and the overtime that is being paid as a result of the so-called modernization by the Conservatives and the Liberals. However, no one here today has told us how to clean up raw bitumen, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives. I can tell the member that two tugs are not going to protect the coast.

A member is asking how many. Let us figure out how to clean up raw bitumen before we talk about increasing tanker traffic.

I keep hearing from Conservatives that people in coastal B.C. and New Democrats are against jobs in Alberta. In fact, we are for jobs. We want to hear about how they are going to move forward with an oil economy that is going to be a transition economy to clean energy. We have not heard proposals about refineries and pathways forward.

I would like to hear from the member about pathways forward, because shipping raw bitumen out of Canada is shipping jobs out of Canada. It is not about putting money aside for future generations like Norway has. We have not heard about responsible economic development.

We care very much about our brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, and uncles in Alberta, but we expect the same kind of respect. We have 100,000 jobs in British Columbia that are based on tourism and hospitality that rely on a pristine, clean environment. Maybe the member could speak a little about that.

Also, we have heard from Conservatives today talk about replacing foreign oil. This project is not proposing to replace foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, replacing the foreign oil part just shows the hypocrisy of the current government.

We talk about cleaning up bitumen. There is a senior researcher, Heather Dettman, with Natural Resources Canada, who has been working on this for years and years. She talks about methods, and there are chemical, booming, and skimming methods. There are methods to do it. There is a lot of misinformation about bitumen. They say that it sinks to the ocean floor, but bitumen floats. This lady knows a lot more about it than all of us, and she is saying that it is actually easier to clean up than regular oil.

There has not been a single oil spill from a tanker off the B.C. coast. We hear a lot of fake horror stories. It is almost like we should never fly just in case there is a plane crash. What if the plane crashes into the hospital? Should we never have a plane? We should never get a new car because there could be a car crash.

We have the very best pilots in the entire world, and the very best in Canada based on the west coast. We have the best technology. We have the best response, and we have the best record, with well over 50 years without a single oil spill from a tanker in British Columbia. We cannot go on the horror stories of what ifs. We have to go on facts, and the facts show that we have done a fantastic job, a perfect job, and I am sure that will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of Nanaimo—Ladysmith to talk about regulating the shipment of oil tankers on B.C.'s coast and what is at stake.

I worked for many years as an ocean kayak guide. I had the great privilege of going to B.C.'s wildest places and I so appreciate the ferocity of the weather, the complication of our shorelines, the speed at which currents and tides move, how the water is never standing still on the B.C. coast, how extremely complicated it would be to clean up oil, and how hard it is to get to some of these places. Where we have the roughest weather is where there is the highest probability of an accident and it would take the longest time to get to a spill. I know what is at stake: the coastal communities that are dependent on fishing, on tourism, and on a pristine environment; the people who live from the shellfish beds and eat the food of the sea, but also those who are invested in the marine economy, the wild salmon economy, and the aquaculture industry.

When the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline was proposed, there was some semblance of a National Energy Board review that gave coastal people their voice. I had the privilege to be in hearing rooms and hear people with emotion in their throats and tears in their eyes talk about the beauty of taking their herring boat through skimming fish, zipping over the surface of the water, the sea life, the birds, and the whales. The connection to the coast is deep and heartfelt and it is our livelihood. It is why we are there. It is where we have come from. A lot is at stake.

I was elected first in 2002 on fighting a pipeline that was going to run through the southern Salish Sea, through the southern gulf Islands. The community worked to fight it. It took four and a half years but we did beat that natural gas pipeline. I was elected to a local government with a conservation mandate. A few years later, I was the chair of council, and we got a real scare when a bulk tanker dragged its anchor in Plumper Sound. That is the sound between Saturna, Mayne, and Pender islands. It was a near miss with its huge tank of bunker sea fuel. We heard within days the head of the department of ecology in Washington state say it was a near miss, that another couple of hundred feet and that freighter would have been on the rocks. If its fuel tank had ruptured, it could have oiled the shorelines on both sides of the international boundary. That is when the lights went on for us. This was in 2009. The Hebei Lion was the first one. In 2010 and 2011, it was virtually the same thing. Huge container ships thought they were anchored safely but they were not.

We started as a local government asking questions about what the oil spill response is and if there had been an oil spill, how quickly response vessels would have arrived. Once we started digging around, we figured out that in fact Kinder Morgan was gearing up for an expansion of its pipeline. This was not well known. The fight against oil tanker traffic was focused on the north coast, but it turned out that this expansion was upon us as well. It is only since 2007 that Kinder Morgan has been exporting in oil tankers out of Vancouver harbour, and so the phenomenon of shipping out an unrefined product is still very new.

The lights went on and we started asking questions about bitumen. It was a Conservative government at the time in 2011. I started writing letters, as I was the trust council chair, asking the minister to tell us about bitumen. I asked where the science is that says it will float long enough for the government to be able to respond to it. I asked what response time was needed. I asked if the existing skimming technology was adequate. Those were questions I asked in 2011, and those questions remain unanswered today. We have never had a letter back from Liberal or Conservative ministers saying that they have a handle on that.

Indeed, we have repeated peer-reviewed studies from The Royal Society of Canada, Polaris, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, all of which say it is not clear with a spill in marine waters, especially with rough water and sediment, how long bitumen will float. Right now, the area I represent, the Salish Sea in between Nanaimo and Vancouver, is exactly the route of the Kinder Morgan tanker traffic that is happening now, let alone the sevenfold increase that will come if the Liberal government has its way and is able to force the project over the objections of coastal people.

No one has been able to say that they know how to respond to it. The response regulations that we have in place date from 1995. The Liberal government, despite its deep affection for the coast—the Prime Minister said he is a grandson of the coast and promised he would do it no harm—has not changed the oil response regulations. A spiller in my region that I am elected to represent has three days to get to the site of a spill and boom and contain the oil.

I keep hearing my Conservative and Liberal counterparts say not to worry, that they have this in hand. Who could possibly count on regulations that date from 1995? Who would ever allow regulations to remain in place that give a spiller three days to get to the site of a spill? I met with the Kinder Morgan CEO in Anderson about six years ago. My best advice to him was that he should be getting the Conservative government to up the oil spill response regulations. I know that he, as a corporate spiller, would respond faster, because he would not want the PR bad news of this. We continue to hear these old, broad announcements about the oceans protection plan from the government, but it has not actually implemented the regulations, which would have some teeth. It is one thing to say we are going to educate and do research, but we need tighter regulations right now.

The diluent that would evaporate off a dilbit spill is thought to be highly volatile, potentially so much in the very first hours of a spill that first responders may have to stay away. That has not been sufficiently studied and we have ample evidence that says it has not. If the first responders have to stay away, after the volatile diluent has evaporated away, it may be that we remain with the crude that sinks faster. We need to have strong measures in place to protect first responders and have fast response times so that the spilled material does not contaminate shellfish beds, the animals that live on them, and the first nations communities whose culture and economy are entirely dependent on a clean ocean.

I do applaud the government in moving forward with a north coast oil tanker ban. It is very much modelled on the legislation from our colleague, the NDP member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. His defend-the-coast tour in support of that legislation was famous in British Columbia. Thousands of British Columbians supported that initiative. Therefore, I very much applaud the government for advancing it.

As I said before, New Democrats wish there was not so much ministerial discretion. We are concerned that accidents, like the Nathan E. Stewart, which so badly affected the Heiltsuk people just last year, and continues to, would not be blocked by this. We continue to be extremely disappointed that the government has invoked closure on this debate so that we are not able to elaborate on the remedies and be even more persuasive about closing some of the loopholes in the ministerial discretion around the types of fuel.

That said, I will be voting in support of the bill, but I do not want friends and coastal people at home to have any false sense of security that the safety net is in place. If the government was really about oceans protection, tomorrow it would be legislating tighter response times so that our communities and ecology on the coast are safe from the threat of a bitumen oil spill.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell all Canadians, members, and constituents that our government is very much committed to protecting our oceans and marine mammals. We have seen ministers, up to the Prime Minister, talk a great deal about the importance to our government of advancing those issues.

Today we are talking about the moratorium for tankers. I am glad it is something the NDP is supporting. We have also invested a significant amount of money, I believe over $2 billion, for oceans protection. It is closer to $5 billion. It is a significant amount of money over the years ahead, so I would remind my friend's constituents and the member across the way that we are committed to doing the right thing.

That said, we are also committed to ensuring at the very least that a dialogue occurs and continues to occur. At times there is a need to get oil to tidewater or to market. I wonder if she could provide her thoughts in regard to that issue. Does she believe there is any situation in which there would be value in getting oil from, let us say, Alberta to tidewater?

Yes, the government does talk a lot about marine protection, but I wish there was less talk and more action. One of the first things that happened under this government's watch was that it closed down the Comox Coast Guard base. How on earth could that be building the safety net? That closure was this government's decision.

Here is another example of talk. In 2013, the Harper government said it was going to do scientific research on diluted bitumen to understand how it would behave in the marine environment. That was in 2013. Then in 2016, the Liberal government said the government would conduct research to better understand how different petroleum products behave in the marine environment. Then it approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline, without having that science done. It was completely irresponsible.

Its action plan sounds just like the Harper Conservatives, and it never got implemented. I am afraid it is all talk and no action.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for being a fierce defender of coastal British Columbia and for her work on abandoned vessels. In standing up for a pristine, clean environment, she truly understands the significant importance of clean oceans for a healthy marine economy and our way of life. I commend her.

We support the bill, even though there are so many holes in it that a supertanker could be driven through it. The Prime Minister, when he talked about putting a ban in place on the north coast, said, “Crude oil supertankers just have no place on B.C.'s north coast.” He cited a number of reasons around the environment and the need to protect our coast. I would like to ask my colleague how she feels, because it seems the Prime Minister's words do not seem to apply to the south coast when they are looking at Kinder Morgan and increasing supertanker traffic sevenfold.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I stand with coastal leaders up and down B.C.'s coast in my firm opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline. It is all downside, no upside for British Columbia. Fifty permanent jobs are what are promised by Kinder Morgan, and there are tens of thousands of B.C. jobs right now, let alone the great value of the ecology.

It is irresponsible of the government. I have been writing letters to the federal transport ministers in both the Conservative government and this one, urging them to put in place geographic response plans. Washington State has 19 of them. These are microplans that identify where there is a migratory bird habitat or what is most important to boom first if a spill happens when the tide is rising or when the current is running a certain direction. These are minutely tuned to local ecology and local human uses, and this government still has put none in place.

How could it have approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline without regulating the safety of it? It is another example of the government being all talk and no action on marine protection.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not mention a great man who has been mentioned many times today in this House, former prime minister Stephen Harper, who is enjoying his 59th birthday today, so I wish Prime Minister Harper a happy birthday.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-48, which aims to ban oil tanker traffic on the northern coastline of British Columbia. This legislation is yet another blatant attack on Canada's energy sector, along with all the high-paying and high-quality jobs that go with it.

The current government can talk about balancing the environment and the economy, but this proposed legislation is not balanced, and it is a direct threat to the viability of Canada's energy sector. This bill not only threatens jobs and the prosperity of Canada but also the solvency of our governments. Furthermore, it fails to respect our commitment to first nations, because the Liberals failed to consult and are discriminating against first nations who support energy development.

This legislation sends a clear message that our country is closing up for business, and industry leaders are listening. Energy giants are already beginning to move their operations to Texas, taking jobs with them. Where will the wealth creation and tax revenues that are needed to finance our transition go? They will go straight south of the border, leaving Canada in a vulnerable position, with few resources, as we seek to embrace change and innovation.

The failure of our energy industry is simply not an option. Although oil prices have doubled over the last two years, governments in Edmonton and Ottawa continue to run substantial deficits. I would like to see the government start trimming these deficits. However, the Liberals cannot seem to kick the habit of spending more than they take in, even with significant tax hikes on small businesses. How is the government ever going to balance the budget while it campaigns actively to phase out the very industry responsible for those revenues? This does not square. Budgets simply do not balance themselves. The government must either raise taxes, cut spending, or, as we propose on this side of the House, grow the economy, not as the Prime Minister suggests, “from the heart outwards”, but by embracing the real opportunities in the energy sector.

The Minister of the Environment recently said in an interview, “Hard things are hard”, and they certainly are. However, the government has made things harder on the families that rely on the energy sector because of its ideological approach to energy development. Take, for example, that the current Liberal Prime Minister ran in the election on a promise to cancel the northern gateway pipeline. He did not run on a promise to review the science or to act in the national interest. No. He made a promise because it was politically expedient to do so. That is the easy thing to do. The problem with taking the easy way out is that someday one has to pay the price, and today, as we watch the dying throes of Canada's last, best hope of getting energy to tidewater, we have only the Liberals to blame. They are now doubling down on their mistakes. They are not content to just cancel northern gateway; they are legislating for future generations to ensure that no pipeline will even be considered for the northwest coast.

Actions have consequences, and those consequences are hard. The families of my constituents know that all too well. The reason for their hardship is that the current Liberal government made rash promises not founded on reason or science but on political calculation. Rather than recognizing that fact, the Liberals are closing their minds and hearts to the hardships of Canadians.

The bill before us today is an attempt to dig up the corpse of northern gateway and put it on trial. It is a declaration to the world that never again will a pipeline be considered to our north. This moratorium is not based on science. It is not even based on the national interest of Canada. It is a political exercise to try to appease those who oppose the Trans Mountain pipeline and who will oppose any energy infrastructure the Liberals' foreign masters will pay them to oppose. When will these Liberals show some backbone, stop caving in to foreign interests and radical activists, and instead stand up for science and stand up for Canadians?

If the Liberal government were to extrapolate its logic and apply it consistently across the country, it would severely hurt our economy. Oil tankers enter Canada daily through the Port of Vancouver, on the east coast, and through the St. Lawrence River without incident. The sad thing is that for the most part, these vessels have circumnavigated the globe to bring Canada energy from other countries, energy that we have ample reserves of ourselves. In ports like Saint John, New Brunswick, millions of tonnes of energy products have been shipped and provide jobs necessary for the prosperity of our eastern provinces. If Bill C-48 passes, the government will be setting a precedent for our entire coastline that will reverberate across our country, killing jobs and opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Let me talk about the hypocrisy of the Liberal government, a government that stands every day in the House to malign the reputation of former Prime Minister Harper, a man they accuse of not consulting with first nations on energy development. Let us talk about the Lax Kw' alaams first nation and the nine tribes whose traditional territory lies within the zone that this moratorium would apply to. Did the government consult with the Lax Kw' alaams, or does it only negotiate with first nations who oppose energy development?

The nine tribes on the west coast have issued a legal challenge to this moratorium and this legislation. I wonder whether the Liberal government will respect aboriginal sovereignty, and will it fulfill its duty to consult? Evidently, it has not. The Lax Kw' alaams are fighting them in court. They are fighting for their economic future, the future of their children, and the Liberal government is disrespecting them and discriminating against them with this legislation. It is shameful, not only because it is the wrong thing to do, but because it flies in the face of everything the Liberal government claims to believe in.

For those who are reasonably concerned about environmental impact of oil tankers on our coast, let us look at some facts. In 2011, the Conservative government undertook the development and implementation of a world-class tanker safety system. This included modernization of navigation systems, enhanced area response planning, and ensuring that polluters pay for the spills and damages caused by accidents in their operations. As a result of this legislation, on top of Canada's sterling record of environmental safety, there has never been a major oil spill on our west coast.

Now the Liberals are pouring more resources into ocean protection, but for what purpose if they are not allowing development to proceed? Why are we spending taxpayer dollars to the tune of $1.5 billion, if they are going to ban the tankers in the first place? It is another example of the government's absolute incompetence when it comes to responsible development and environmental protection.

In the best-case scenario, even if this legislation only leads to preventing tankers from operating on the northwest coast, it would be an act of supreme unfairness for those communities on the coast. If there is a lack of infrastructure to protect from or mitigate a possible spill, then perhaps some of the Liberal money should be going toward that solution. Surely if this legislation is their solution, then it should be sufficient to protect our northwest coast. If oil tankers are as big a threat as the Liberals claim, why have they not invested in better ocean protection on every coast? Why are they not speaking in Halifax, St. John's, or other Atlantic city on the importance of protecting against oil spills with new funding?

The fact is that they are not. They know full well that there is no clear threat of a catastrophic oil spill. They are merely trying to score political points by shutting down an entire coast from any development, hurting communities like the Lax Kw' alaams in the process. It is a shameful state of affairs when a government chooses to put its own political self-interest ahead of the interests of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member where he did his research. I have personally met with the Lax Kw' alaams many times. Incidentally, the hereditary chiefs of the Lax Kw' alaams do not agree with the Lax Kw' alaams Chief John Helin. I also met with the Metlakatla, the Nisga'a, the Haida, the Haisla, with the Heiltsuk, and with Eagle Spirit. Where does the member do his research when he says no one was consulted?

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 2018, the Lax Kw' alaams asked for an injunction against this legislation because they do not agree with the government. At Grassy Point, they have a deep water port. It is a safe area for a marine port, and the government has unilaterally chosen to shut it down. It does not make any sense. Why are the Liberals doing a one-size-fits-all solution that harms the Lax Kw' alaams first nation? They can talk about consulting all these other first nations, but frankly if they are not giving an exception or supporting the Lax Kw' alaams, then they have failed to do their duty.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about investments and the uncertainty here in Canada. John Ivison wrote a great article this morning on the front page of the National Post. He talked about the “slow bleeding” of corporate Canada that is about to be under way, and the fact that as investments are slowing, they are almost ready to fall off the cliff.

One of the comments he made was on the uncertainty, not just “over NAFTA, [but] minimum wage hikes, high electricity prices, jurisdictional wrangling over pipelines and carbon taxes, the imposition of new environmental regulations” and why they have a precedent. The government is more interested in taxing than generating wealth.

The government talks about how all these things are doing, yet we see investments starting to dry up. The member alluded to this in his comments, and I would hope he would comment further about how this is undermining not just the oil and gas sector, but other sectors in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers do not lie, and we have lost $80 billion in investment over the last two years alone. Maybe we do not see the impact today, but these are the investments that will grow our economy tomorrow by providing the jobs and wages for tomorrow. The government can talk about how great the economic numbers are, but it is living off economic numbers from investment when the Conservatives were in government. We are going to be living in a future that has less investment because of the actions of the government.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about responsible economic development and he spoke about oil. When I think about oil and the oil sector, I look to Norway, which has $1 trillion in its prosperity fund. In fact, it is earning about $50 billion a year on interest alone, whereas Alberta has $11 billion put away.

I would like to hear the member speak about how this happened. How did Canada get left with $11 billion in its prosperity fund and Norway has $1 trillion, which is earning $50 billion a year in interest? It is investing in countries like Guyana, on a low-carbon strategy, doing good work around the world, and making investments necessary to tackle climate change, focused on transition where it is investing in renewable energy.

I would like the member to speak about the pathway forward and how we can be more responsible like our Norwegian friends.

Mr. Speaker, one thing people fail to mention when they talk about the example of Norway is, yes, it may have this large sovereign wealth fund, but it also has hundreds of billions of dollars in debt.

As Albertans, we made a very conscious choice that we wanted to eliminate our debt as a province. Sadly, under the current NDP government in Alberta, we are going right back down that debt hole again. I must say I am very proud of the Alberta Investment Management Corporation and our heritage fund. It is doing an excellent job of investing the wealth of Alberta, which is providing excellent returns. I want to see a future Conservative government, under Jason Kenney, continue with that great action and grow that fund even further.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to talk about this bill.

I sat on the transport committee while this bill made its way through committee. I know this has been labelled by many as hypocrisy, but the number one thing I want to talk about today is consultation. It is interesting that it was brought up by the last speaker from Edmonton and the minister mentioned it as well.

The minister made a key point that I think will be proven wrong in a court of law. He mentioned it at committee as well. I asked him about the duty to consult. He responded to that question with a long list. He will remember full well the list he provided me. However, when he asked his question just now, he said that he had a meeting or that he met.

That is not consultation. I asked people whom he had on his list when they appeared before committee if they had met with the minister. They said, “Yes, we did.” I asked if they called that consultation. Whether they approved of the ban or opposed the ban, they all snickered because they all know it was not consultation. In fact, a number of the people who were there also said, and members can check the record because it is all recorded, that when they sat down with the minister, they told him that it was not to be considered consultation, that it was just a meeting.

The question constitutional experts, and I am not one, will ask is, “Do you need to consult to impose legislation?” Well, we might find out.

The flip side of this is, let us say another government gets in in another period of time and wants to do away with Bill C-48 and eliminate the tanker ban. Will it need to consult? We may find out the answer to that question as well.

The key point is, and I think we will see this in the court case that is being brought forward, whether the federal government has the right to impede on resource development on lands where it is clearly stated in their nationhood? Will the government have the ability to eliminate any possibility for them to develop resources, to transport resources across the area? Will it be able to tell them whether or not they will be able to develop a deepwater port along the coastline of their land?

I think most constitutional experts would say that as long as it passed all the regulatory requirements of an environmental assessment, etc., they probably should be able to. We will see.

I just wanted to make that point, that from the very beginning of when the minister appeared just down the hallway here on Bill C-48, I asked him the question, and all the way through the process of the bill going through committee, I asked the question. Each and every time, people felt they were not consulted. They had a meeting, but true consultation is not a meeting. We will see on that one. It will be an interesting court case.

I will also mention that there were a few comments that really raised my eyebrows on the reconciliation and rehabilitation between first nations members and government. Again, this is on the record. One of the main objectives of the government was to improve relations with first nations, and they made the comment, “We don't need a trust fund prime minister telling us what to do.” They also looked at this bill as “further colonialism.” We are talking 2017-18. These are their words. These are not my words. These are the words of first nations members.

Eagle Spirit Energy took five years to work on a project where members of first nations could come together to develop resources from Alberta to the coast of B.C. and to do a project. One of their comments, which I also thought was great, was that they were not looking for a handout, that they were looking for a hand up to further the economic ability and the economic development within their own communities to give their people, their children, and their grandchildren an opportunity to have a better life.

These are regular Canadians who just want a chance to develop resources in a safe manner and transport resources in a safe manner. They love their country, they love their environment, and they would not do anything if they ever thought it would have a negative impact on them.

I know hypocrisy has been mentioned before, and probably every speech has mentioned it in one form or another. We are banning tanker traffic in this area, yet we are not banning it in an area south of this area. We are not banning it in an area on the east coast. We are not banning it in an area along the St. Lawrence. It is just one specific area. Oil will be coming in from different countries that certainly have less stringent environmental regulations on the development of resources than we do. This has even been written about by former Liberal members of Parliament as well.

To show members the kind of crisis we are at and the situation we are in, instead of creating a pipeline to transport oil to a port and transporting it from that port on a safe vessel to a market and actually getting a fair price for it, we are now forcing companies like CN Rail and other technology companies to use this product called CanaPux. They are actually adding polymer plastic to oil so they can ship it by rail through the two CN rail lines on the northern coast. They ship these CanaPux on vessels that would normally handle coal. This is what we have been forced to do. Diesel locomotives are travelling thousands of kilometres of rail line up and down interesting terrain just to ship it along the way. As a guy from Ontario, I sometimes question what we are doing in this country.

Another thing I thought troublesome, and I think the minister and department officials would agree, is the schedule. Using the CanaPux example, I asked government officials if CanaPux would be put on the schedule. Well, nobody has an answer, and I am not sure anybody will have an answer. Also, if we get on that schedule, how do we get off the schedule? There are no answers to that. Before any proposed legislation comes into force, I think that needs to be clearly defined and clearly set out. The industry has a right to know.

A constituent of mine mentioned that there is a consortium of clean tech people who have the technology and ability to clean up spills. They have been on a contract to provide cleanup services on the west coast. Their project or their submission to public works was flatly declined in favour of a solvent that was an American technology. I do not think we have anything against America, but when we have a Canadian technology that has been proven to be able to clean up oil spills—not dissolve oil, but actually clean up oil spills—then we have to question exactly what we are trying to accomplish here. I feel fairly safe about what technology can do to deal with vessels exporting oil products to this country, China, and parts in between, but what are we doing?

The final thing I will add is that yes, there is a ban on oil, but there is no ban on diesel fuel. Obviously I am not a scientist and I realize that the two have different properties, but there is no ban on diesel fuel. That is further to the hypocrisy point. I would say that if we had a diesel spill, it would cause a lot of damage to the environment, marine life, and marine plants, yet there is no mention of that in the bill. Each side is making is making their points, and the bill will get passed, but I would like to mention that there will obviously be court challenges and perhaps quite a bit of hypocrisy as well.

The CanaPux development is an interesting one. I have been on public record saying that we would look at it. It may be something that does not need to be put in the schedule. On the schedule itself, that is for dilbit and persistent oils. The member mentioned diesel. There are different kinds of diesel. Some are more persistent than others. I suggest the member do a little bit of research on that.

What I really want to ask the member about is the consultation process. He definitely had his views on whether we consulted. We consulted an enormous amount, not just me but my ministry as well. We consulted all sorts of different groups. However, I wonder if the member consulted any first nations who are in favour of the moratorium, because there are quite a few. I would like to know what kind of feedback he got from them.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Haida Nation came to committee. I do not know if anybody who attended that meeting is in the House, but I asked the representatives and they said that they were not consulted either. That is on the record as well. It is from committee testimony from 2017. I did not say that. I just asked them if they felt they had been consulted, and they said no. Here is a nation that obviously supports the bill, but its members do not feel like they have been consulted.

In my area, Huron—Bruce, with Bruce Power, OPG, the Port of Goderich, and others, there is a lot of consultation taking place with members of first nations. The Saugeen First Nation would be a great example. One, two, or three meetings is not consultation. Until the entire community feels as though it has been properly informed, until the people know the science and know everything there is possibly to know about the project, up to and including the legal opinions they get from their own lawyers, truly only then is that what they would consider consultation. They could probably tell a lot better than I can, but a couple of meetings with some ministers in British Columbia is not consultation. If that is the Liberals' only consultation, they will find in the court of law that they will have their hats handed to them.

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals fail to see is that there is a challenge, an undercurrent in this country where investment is starting to dry up because of decisions the government has made. The Liberals go around the world telling people to come and invest in Canada, and yet a number of investment dollars have left. Last summer, when the Liberals mused about making tax cuts, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business brought in stakeholders and talked about how a billion dollars had left the country, because capital can flee.

Given some of the challenges that have been going on with building pipelines, does the member believe that we are going to be in trouble in terms of being able to attract direct foreign investment as we move forward from this point on?

Mr. Speaker, we are at a very significant period of time in Canada's history. Can we get big projects done? Do we have the will, not just from the business side but also from the environmental side, to lay out in clear terms what it takes to get a project done? The Liberals have taken that and destroyed all certainty. No one knows. There are projects that have been under environmental assessment for over a decade, very complicated and complex environmental assessment, and because of the changes the Liberals have made, it does not work. I know of a gold mine that was almost through the environmental assessment process, and then the Liberals changed the process and now it has to start over again. That is not good for business. It is a waste of time.

We are at an important point in this country's history. Do we have the intestinal fortitude to get these projects done, get people back to work, and continue to make this the greatest country in the world?

Mr. Speaker, as this bill would predominantly affect my riding in northwestern British Columbia, and as we have been dealing with this issue for more than a generation, there is some authority in terms of the people I represent and for whom I speak.

Here is a fundamental question we have been asking for years. The northern gateway pipeline, and now the Kinder Morgan pipeline, proposed to move diluted bitumen through a pipeline to the west coast. A question we have been consistently asking of the former Conservative government and the current Liberal government is what happens when this stuff gets into water and whether they can clean it up. Diluted bitumen has different properties than traditional, conventional oil, and the best knowledge we have so far is that it cannot be cleaned up because it sinks.

Does my friend have anything to reassure us, or even assure, because no one actually has a lot of assurance right now, that in the event of a spill from a pipeline or a tanker in the ocean we have current technology that would clean up even a scintilla of the oil that actually gets into the environment?

Mr. Speaker, I have a high level of regard for the member. He sat on the committee for many of the meetings while we were studying the bill.

I began my speech by saying that I am not a scientist and I would never proclaim to be. Although there are many members in the House who think they are scientists, I would probably want to check their degrees and make sure they are in fact scientists.

I know for a fact that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is not 100% pleased with this bill. He and I respectfully have different views on this bill and what it should do, but from his perspective, too, he probably has questions about consultation, questions about the schedule, and many other questions. Here is a member who would like to see the bill go further, and he has issues with it. That is fair. He has not had his questions answered, either.

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard many intelligent comments about Bill C-48 from many people with an extreme amount of knowledge on this topic, and there have been many questions of those people. Maybe that leaves me with rhetoric. I do not know what is left to say, but I will try.

Trade has always been a pivotal component of life in Canada. Long ago, before European settlement, indigenous peoples traded prolifically. On the British Columbia coast, much of that trade was conducted by water. For example, the Haida Nation made use of large commercial canoes to achieve great prosperity along the Pacific coast. It is quite remarkable that this legislation makes such a radical departure from Canadian history. In Canada we have some of the most lucrative trading goods in the history of humanity at our disposal, namely oil and gas, but we cannot trade them, because we cannot access the market to do it. It seems a betrayal of Canada's historical legacy as a trading nation.

Unfortunately, this oil tanker moratorium appears to be just another stage of the government's plan to phase out Canada's energy sector. We desperately need to diversify Canada's export markets for oil and gas, yet Bill C-48 would take further steps to limit access to tidewater for Canadian oil. It is not just a tanker moratorium; it is a pipeline moratorium. The government has increasingly demonstrated that its agenda is dictated by radical activists and the foreign donors who support them. These people want Canada to be nothing more than a giant nature preserve.

Of course, we do have vast areas of pristine wilderness that I think all Canadians are proud of. I have been on the coast of Newfoundland all the way down to New Brunswick. It is a beautiful coastline. I was probably on the Pacific Rim, which is now the Pacific Rim National Park, before many people in the House were born. I have been on the tide pools and the coast and the beautiful Pacific part of Vancouver Island. Some members are older, which the minister might be, but some of us are a little older than he is.

I know that the Prime Minister was just in Europe, in France and Paris, and he apologized about being so slow to phase out the energy sector. It might have shocked his audience to find that Canada is not just one large nature preserve. People live here in Canada and people across the country work in the Canadian energy industry, and those people are being hurt by the government's disregard of the Canadian energy sector. In my riding of Bow River, the job losses have been catastrophic. People need pipelines with oil going to foreign markets. These people are highly skilled and highly trained. They may have found other jobs in other sectors, but they are much lower paying and are not using their highly trained skills.

Those foreign markets need oil. Global demand is growing. It is projected to keep growing at least for the next 30 years, especially in the Asia-Pacific region that we need to reach from the west coast. Let us get our economy back on track and meet this global demand.

As it stands, we are selling our oil at a huge discount to the United States. The U.S. sells it back to us to refine in New Brunswick refineries at the full market price. It is like building a car in Canada for $30,000 but having only one market, which offers us $15,000, and we take it, and then they sell it back to us for $30,000, because we have no choice.

By some estimates, the losses amount to at least a large school a day and a major hospital a week being built in the United States instead of in Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars are lost because we cannot diversify our energy exports. It is a ridiculous situation. It is embarrassing to our country on the international stage when we look at countries that trade. Despite this totally unacceptable situation, we have learned that the government is funding anti-pipeline activists through the Canada summer jobs program, yet in my constituency, summer camps cannot get any money for summer jobs.

One constituent told me today that if people are convicted of obstructing justice, they should immediately be put on a no-fly list. They could not fly if they were convicted of obstructing justice while protesting. That is an interesting concept.

The government can dismiss the reality with its favourite talking points all it wants, but the issue is a lot more complicated than a talking point. Oil products are already shipped safely in and out of ports across Atlantic Canada and B.C. If we have to distill it down to a sound bite in the way the government likes to, let us put it like this: Venezuelan oil is shipped up the St. Lawrence to Montreal. If both those coasts were travelled on both sides of the St. Lawrence, one would find some of the most natural beauty in our country. It is very different on one side and the other, yet we are shipping large oil tankers all the way up the St. Lawrence to Montreal.

We are shipping Saudi Arabian oil to the east coast through the many islands to get to the refineries in St. John. If one has travelled on those islands and seen the beautiful coast, one knows we have skilled pilots on the west coast. It is tricky to get through to St. John's as well, but we are allowed to do that. Canadian oil is okay for Vancouver but not northern B.C. It does not make much sense when one puts it like that, but that is exactly what this legislation would implement.

This bill is yet another signal to investors that Canada's energy sector should be avoided. That is a travesty, especially since our former Conservative government already implemented responsible tanker safety regulations and established a world-class tanker safety system in 2014. That legislation modernized Canada's navigation system. It enhanced area response planning. However, we have had colleagues say we could do more. Well, we could do more. It built marine safety capacity in aboriginal communities and ensured polluters pay for spills and damages.

What we should be doing is building upon that successful safety record. Let us build more. We should be harnessing Canadian ingenuity and the great skills that our pilots have on the west coast. We should be collaborating with regional and indigenous stakeholders to develop even safer mechanisms for our coasts. We could maybe export that to the rest of the world. That is the logical next step, not a moratorium that would prevent any possibility of progress. Furthermore, a voluntary exclusion zone of 100 kilometres for oil tankers travelling from Alaska has already been in place since 1985 just beside this area.

Look at the current investment climate. Why pass legislation that does nothing more than remind investors of the government's attitude toward oil and gas? I guess what Maslow said was right. He said that when someone only has a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. This legislation is nothing more than a nail in the coffin of investor confidence in Canada.

Some $80 billion in investment has now been driven out of Canada. I hear about this in my constituency. That is a huge number, but the devastating impact of the government's attitude toward oil and gas is not limited to investors. The indigenous nations mentioned earlier have sued the federal and provincial government over this tanker ban. They argue that it is an unjustified infringement on their aboriginal rights and title. In fact, 30 first nations started an online campaign to raise money against this ban. It does not seem that the government was able to convince them in the consultation process that it was a good idea.

I have had the opportunity to meet with several first nations elders. Their views on energy development are not as uniform as the government would have us believe. Many I spoke with did not want to be told what they could and could not develop. They want the autonomy to make their own decisions in the best interest of their people. They view this as a lack of consultation and a form of colonialism, as they mentioned to me. Many first nations leaders want the right to develop their resources in the way they choose.

Even if this legislation receives royal assent, U.S. tankers travelling from Alaska to Washington would continue to travel up and down the B.C. coast. This is not about the tankers; it is about tying the hands of future governments and preventing pipeline construction. It is a pipeline moratorium under a different name. It is the opposite action to what the government should be taking. It needs to send positive signals to international and Canadian energy investors. It needs to actively champion the diversification of energy exports. This bill would not do that, and I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member spoke about diversifying markets for oil and natural gas.

I would like to ask him the following question: instead, why not work on diversifying clean energy sources and the jobs that go with them, especially since we know that oil is a non-renewable, finite resource?

Mr. Speaker, just after 2000, I read a book that talked about the declining numbers with respect to gas and oil in the world, that it was very limited, and that within 20 years it would be gone. Thanks to technology and innovation, and tremendous people in the oil and gas sector, those numbers in that book are total garbage now because we continue to find more. When members talk about finite resources, what exists today as far as gas and oil is concerned is twice what it was in 2000. Therefore, I am not sure about the prediction that it is limited, because we have proven that wrong in the last 15 years, because of great guys with innovation skills in the oil and gas sector who keep finding more resources in our globe.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points in my friend from Bow River's presentation that require a bit of a fact check.

There is a big difference on the west coast of B.C., particularly between Haida Gwaii and the coast. Hecate Strait particularly is an extremely active body of water. There is nothing like it or comparable, for instance, on the St. Lawrence Seaway or in eastern Canada. That is a bit of a backgrounder for why the moratorium was in place from 1972 until 2012, because of the specific threats to B.C.'s coast that oil tankers posed at that time.

I particularly want to take the member up on this idea that we have all this oil and gas, and that it keeps expanding. He may be quite right. We never thought we could frack Bakken shale, and we did not think we could pull bitumen up out of the oil sands, and that has expanded the available petroleum resources.

What is shrinking, what is finite, and what is actually overloaded is the space in the shared atmosphere for warming gases. If we look at any of the carbon budgets put forward by the efforts globally of scientists, we cannot afford to expand our fossil fuel use at all. We have to shrink it rapidly. I would ask him if he is familiar with recent science, and if he understands that a global catastrophe awaits those who think we can increase the volume of fossil fuels we use.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is extremely well versed on this particular topic and would have a much more significant depth and breadth of issues to deal with it.

What I do know is that I have met some of the most important people in terms of their skills, knowledge, and innovation. I believe that we have tremendous people on this globe who have found ways to do things innovatively that we did not even think of 15 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago. They have the ability to find different methods of dealing with those issues, such as the catastrophe that was mentioned, and we can solve those issues. We have tremendous people on this planet who can do that, and I believe in the people who live here.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel that the Prime Minister is the captain of the Titanic and all these members are rearranging the deck chairs as they head toward an iceberg. Why I say that is the whole issue of direct foreign investment.

I had the chance to meet with 20 businesses from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. These are large companies that have factories here in Canada. One company in particular said that it had six plants in Canada. It could assure us that, because it has other investments around the world, it will probably never invest in Canada again. That is troubling.

What is going on here in terms of direct foreign investment, in terms of uncertainty, and why do these issues matter as it relates to money being invested In Canada from other parts of the world?

Mr. Speaker, my riding runs up beside Calgary, and we know what is happening in Calgary. When the president of Cenovus says that his office is now in Denver, we know what is happening. It may not have moved its head office yet, but we know what is going to happen.

I personally know a number of people in the oil sector who are now working in Texas because they know that is where the investment is. A number of highly skilled people are leaving their families to search for jobs and may end up in Australia or Africa. They are leaving because there is no work here because the investment has gone somewhere else in the world. It has left Canada and it will be a while before it comes back.

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this, and we as a party are offended.

There was an agreement made two and a half weeks ago when this session started that we would work together with the government and not be obstructionist, but work to help pass bills that we were able to support.

The result so far is that the government has passed Bill S-2, C-21, C-47, and Bill C-58 all without time allocation, and progress was being made on three more bills, Bill C-55, C-57, and C-60.

There was one bill that we said we had a lot of interest in and would like to have enough time for all of our members to be able to speak, and that was Bill C-48. Now the House leader has broken her word. There is no other way to interpret this. If this is the way she is going to start this session after we have worked in such good faith for the last two and half weeks, all the members know that it will be a case of here we go again: a repeat of the failure we saw in the spring session.

Where in the world is the House leader's integrity and ability to keep her word?

Mr. Speaker, of course I know that my hon. colleague realizes that this is an extremely important bill. It is a bill that we very clearly announced a long time ago. It was one of the electoral promises we made. We have had a chance to talk about this bill for a while. However, it will go to committee, as we know, and will be amply debated there, not to mention report stage and third reading. It will also get an airing in the Senate. This is an extremely important bill that we promised Canadians we were going to deliver. I cannot say how many people support it, but it is a huge number . We are going forward with this bill and hope the opposition will be constructive about it.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is an important bill. That is why we wanted to have more than two members from the official opposition speak to it before the government invoked closure. Perhaps we should not be surprised. The government House leader and the Liberal government telegraphed that they would go to time allocation whether or not we agreed with them.

The Minister of Transport just said this was an important bill and that we would be heard somewhere else, not in the House of Commons. This is once again a case of the Liberals wanting an audience, not an opposition. They are violating the rights of this place. There were two speakers on a half-day. We agreed to give them a half-day when the Governor General was sworn in. They took advantage of our good faith and are abusing the process to shut down the opposition after two votes.

Is the minister really proud of shutting down the debate after only two opposition speakers have had an opportunity to speak?

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this bill. I want to assure my colleague that the debate will continue. There are many more stages in the House of Commons, as well as the Senate, where this bill will go. I will only say it once, but I remember keeping count of the more than a hundred time allocation motions the opposition moved when it was in government just a little while ago.

Mr. Speaker, I had a speaking spot on this bill this afternoon. It looks like it will not happen now. It is very disappointing. There has been a lot of community pressure for a ban along these lines brought forward by some of my own colleagues in previous parliaments. However, there are a lot of questions that we still have to ask about this bill. For example, the minister is given too much arbitrary power to exempt vessels from the ban and to determine what kind of fuels are included or excluded; we hear that there is not enough consultation with first nations; and the bill does nothing to prevent the kind of spills we saw on the north coast, for example, by the Nathan E. Stewart. That spill was calamitous for the shellfish industry and the maritime jobs of the Heiltsuk people.

If the government is so proud of this bill and so ready to go forward with it, why not give the official opposition and the progressive opposition the ability to ask questions and offer our ideas now in the House where everyone can see our work on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, of course, we have said very specifically that the ministerial power would only be used in extreme emergencies for the public good and in cases where there was a dire emergency and a need to refuel a community along the northern coast of British Columbia.

As for the persistent oils that are on the list, we gave that a great deal of thought before we came up with that list. The ones that are on the persistent oil list are those that take a long period of time to break up and can potentially cause the greatest damage to ecosystems, bird life, mammals, and shorelines. Those are things that we gave a great deal of thought to. We excluded naphtha, jet gas, propane, LNG, and gasoline.

We gave it a huge amount of thought and have already talked about it. Therefore, I am not quite sure why my colleague is asking the same question again.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is proud of the bill. Is he proud to shut down the democratic process in the House? There are members from all parties who were elected by their constituents to bring their perspectives to the House. We have 96 members in our caucus. I am proud of each and every one of them. Many of them have different perspectives, coming from different communities, and will be impacted differently by the bill.

The minister is suggesting that we should be happy if five of our members have a chance to speak to the bill: two in the House of Commons and three at committee. This would be the full complement of Conservative representation that would be brought to this process with the bill before us.

We have members from Calgary, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and across this country who have a right to be heard on the bill. Their constituents demand that they be heard on the bill. The minister is shutting down that right of these members to be heard, but more importantly, he is shutting down the voices of Canadians.

Is the minister proud of shutting down the voices of Canadians who are concerned about the bill?

First, I do have to second the comment just been made by the government side. The Conservatives, when they were in government, imposed time allocation and closure on debate over 100 times in this place. They had no respect for the rights of parliamentarians to have their say on bills.

However, on the other hand, as we learned in grade 4, two wrongs do not make a right, and it is no excuse for the Liberal government to now impose closure and take away the rights of people on this side of the House to have their say.

I also had a speaking spot today. I come from Vancouver, a coastal city where our constituents have very important concerns about tankers on the coast. Now I have been robbed of my ability to raise the voice of the people of Vancouver Kingsway in the House, because the Liberal government is imposing time allocation and taking away our right to represent our constituents in the House.

It was wrong when the Conservatives did so. It is wrong that the Liberals are doing it now. This is why we need a New Democrat government in 2019 to finally bring back respect for democracy in this chamber and across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impassioned comments on this, but I do want to reassure him that there are still many stages left before this bill leaves the House of Commons for the Senate. I am optimistic that he will have an opportunity to express himself during the course of the different stages of this legislation through the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, what just happened in this House is that the Liberals made the decision to shut down debate. They moved time allocation on a bill that is very important with regard to the energy sector. It is a bill that I and many of my colleagues were hoping to have the opportunity to speak to.

It is important to note that my colleagues and I do not represent ourselves. We do not. I think the Liberals sometimes forget that. They forget that they are here on behalf of those who elected them to be here, to be a voice on behalf of the Canadian people. On this side of the House, we have not forgotten that. We were elected by our constituents to be a voice on their behalf in this place.

This place is called the House of Commons because it is supposed to be common people representing common people. The only way that can happen is if debate actually takes place in this House. What my colleagues across the aisle have just done by moving time allocation robs us and Canadians from coast to coast of a voice in this place where they deserve to have a voice. Why? It is because Canada upholds democracy, which means we were voted in, we were elected to be in this place to represent our constituents.

On behalf of the people of Lethbridge, I am meant to be in this place to have a voice for them. The Liberals just took away that voice from those in Lethbridge.

Here is my question for the hon. minister. Are you Liberals actually so anti-democratic that you would shut down debate and silence the voice of constituents from coast to coast? Are you that anti-democratic?

Back in 2015 we definitely heard a lot of voices from Canadians who very strongly supported the concept of a permanent moratorium on west coast tanker traffic. That is, of course, the substance of this bill.

We feel that there is going to be a reasonable amount of time for members of the opposition to express themselves on this bill. The bill is going to go to committee. It will come back for report stage and third reading. There will be other opportunities for both parties to express themselves on whether they agree with it or not.

As well, there is the very important work that goes on in committee. May I say, on a very positive note, that yesterday there was great co-operation among all the parties in doing the clause by clause on another important transport bill, Bill C-49.

Mr. Speaker, I feel pretty lucky today, because the other day when the minister was making his speech, I was in the House and I happened to be able to ask him a question. It appears that I am going to be one of the few who are going to be able to ask a question of the government, because it is shutting down debate.

The problem with that is that I asked the minister a question, and he deliberately evaded it. I represent a west coast constituency that has the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline set to run through it. We are talking about protection of the west coast.

What the minister would not answer was whether or not he agreed with his colleague that the army should be used to ram this pipeline through British Columbia. I am giving the minister a second chance now to answer that question. Is he going to use the defence forces to ram the Kinder Morgan pipeline through communities and through first nations reserves against the will of British Columbians?

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer any question on the moratorium, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the moratorium. This is not a free-for-all for people to ask any questions about any subject.

If there is a question on the moratorium, I promise I will give my opinion on that.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the Liberal government not wanting to hear legitimate criticism.

Limiting the debate on this issue to only a few members in this House does not give fair representation to the members from British Columbia, from Alberta, from Saskatchewan, or from the rest of the country to even present their position.

It does not give those members the opportunity to voice the opinions that they have heard from first nations that will lose economic opportunities because of this bill. It does not give members a chance to address the regional discrimination that this bill would impose against one region of the country.

I challenge the minister: has he checked the constitutional legality of this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in that comment about regional discrimination. If we are talking about discrimination between adjacent provinces, our record shows very clearly that unlike the previous government, which was in power for 10 years, we have done a great deal to promote and to allow the possibility of pipelines and the industry in Alberta, something that the previous government was clearly unable to do. I would not call that discrimination, but it certainly was a failure on the part of that government.

Mr. Speaker, I am seriously troubled. I feel very privileged to be in a caucus with fellow members who represent ridings bordering on the very ocean that we are talking about. Every one of them is sincere in standing up and sharing the views of their constituents. I stood aside as the environment critic in order to give them an opportunity to voice those views.

The hon. minister says there will be lots more opportunity, and this deeply troubles me. Let us look at the reality. The bill would be referred to a committee on which we have one representative, and that one representative may be able to ask a few questions of witnesses and may have the opportunity to propose a few amendments.

I am deeply troubled by the Liberals' track record. They have rejected every amendment that has been put forward in this place. They are sometimes open to amendments by their fellow members in the Senate, but they never accept amendments from here.

Would the minister undertake to not invoke closure on the next reading of this legislation in this place?

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I remember being the single Liberal member on a number of committees for four years during the previous government, so I understand what she is talking about. I nevertheless had the opportunity to voice my concerns, as will others as the bill goes through the House of Commons.

This is a multi-stage process of debate. The debate will continue in committee and it will continue at third reading stage and it will then go on to the Senate, so there will be ample opportunity for this bill to be aired.

As for consultation, we did a huge amount of consultation during the year and a half before we put the bill together, so I am confident that we represent the vast majority of Canadians in support of this moratorium.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister say on the one hand that it is a platform commitment so we barely need any debate, when on the other hand, most of the time he says it is a platform commitment so we are not going to do it.

Not only is this an assault on democracy but it is also an assault on economic development. It is clear that the government prefers foreign oil to Canadian oil in every case. Tankers bringing foreign oil from one place to another will be travelling up and down the B.C. coast, yet we will not have the opportunity to export Canadian oil and get it to markets. It is the same principle whereby the government is imposing all sorts of restrictions that limit energy infrastructure from going east while it continues not to apply those restrictions to the export of foreign oil.

Why are we seeing this assault on democracy and economic development at the same time? I would particularly like to know from the transport minister why there is a preference in every case for foreign oil over Canadian oil.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question, because our government approved three pipelines, with conditions. We want to see Canadian oil going to foreign markets and we are definitely doing everything we can to make that happen, so I am not sure what point the hon. member is trying to make.

As our Prime Minister has said and as all of us in the Liberal Party have said many times, we are achieving the proper balance between economic development and the environment. We are making a strong statement here, as part of the greater oceans protection plan, that we want to ensure that the coastal area, those 400 kilometres north of Vancouver Island, will remain pristine. This is an area where for millennia coastal nations have lived and worked and brought up their families. We have made a solemn commitment to do this and we are going to do it.

To say that we are not in favour of economic development is to not understand the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking about time allocation on the bill. I find it interesting when I see time allocation, especially when there are only two speakers and it is brought forward under circumstances that one would question, because the throne speech that the government brought forward when it was elected says the following:

Welcome also to the 197 members who are newly elected. Your enthusiasm and fresh ideas will serve your country well.

I call on all parliamentarians to work together, with a renewed spirit of innovation, openness and collaboration. ...

How?

By being smart, and caring—on a scale as never before.

The times we live in demand nothing less.

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.

Parliament shall be no exception.

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

When I look at what is happening here today, I am trying to rationalize what was said in the throne speech versus the actions that we see by the government day after day, and I cannot rationalize it. I would like the Minister of Transport to stand in the House of Commons today and tell the Canadian people why he has turned his back not only on them but on his own government's throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past two years, we have allowed ample amounts of time for debate. As we know, we are going through Bill C-48, which is on the moratorium. It will go to committee. When it goes to committee, there will be opportunity to debate it. Witnesses will be heard on both sides, I am sure. After that, it will go to third reading and to report stage. After that it will go to the Senate.

We are following the proper process to turn this bill into law and we feel that an adequate amount of time has been allocated for Bill C-48.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the Minister of Transport, his team, and all of the public servants who worked on this bill.

Earlier, the minister said that he had consulted many people in recent weeks and months. Could he share the outcome of these consultations with the House, and tell us how the consultations were factored into this bill?

What aspects of the consultations were retained and considered in this bill?

We knew that we had to set the terms and conditions of this bill. When we were talking about an oil tanker moratorium, we had to decide, for example, which products would be allowed to be transported in these oil tankers, taking the science and importance of the environment into consideration. We also held extensive consultations concerning the remote communities in northern British Columbia that rely on these tankers to supply their oil. We were forced to limit how much oil these tankers could transport, in order to be able to supply these communities.

Furthermore, we extensively consulted first nations, including the Nisga'a, Lax Kw'alaams, Metlakatla, Haisla, Heiltsuk, and Haida bands. We spoke to a number of first nations living in that part of the country, and they all had things to say. We consulted many people before we finalized this bill. I hope that it will be passed as drafted. We will see as this bill moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, five minutes was about the length of the last response from the government side.

We on the west coast know how important the coastal waters are to our province. It is an important resource. It is a basis for our fishery, forestry, and eco-tourism. It is of enormous impact to species all along the coast, and the consequences of an oil spill on the west coast could be disastrous. We know the Exxon Valdez cost billions of dollars that the company still never really paid the full amount for, which is still affecting fish stocks today.

I support the banning of supertankers in certain areas of British Columbia, but this bill gives the minister the power to exempt ships for indeterminate amounts of time if deemed in the public interest. The New Democrats believe that this exemption is irresponsible and unnecessary. The current government deemed it in the public interest to allow supertankers to go into the Burrard Inlet through the Kinder Morgan pipeline to have seven times the current supertankers going through the Burrard Inlet now, risking an oil spill in Vancouver, which in the eyes of the Liberals was in the public interest.

How can Canadians trust that the minister will demonstrate proper judgment in the exercise of the public interest, when the Liberals have already so badly mismanaged that in determining it is in the public interest to allow oil tankers in the Burrard Inlet, contrary to the interests of the people of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague supports this bill, but it is the third time I am answering the NDP question about ministerial powers. The ministerial powers are for extreme emergency situations. The only example that at the moment exists is if there was an emergency in a community along the coast in a remote area that suddenly, for reasons we do not anticipate, needed a vast quantity of a certain kind of fuel. That might be one exception. However, we do not anticipate using that ministerial power.

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the transport committee, and we put through Bill C-49 last night. It was a little unusual that on Monday we were notified the committee would sit from 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Be that as it may, the member from Saskatoon and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills stayed, and it was very collegial. In my nine years, I do not recall any bill getting passed in one day through a committee. The members made their points and were very collegial.

However, we see this take place today. If people wonder at home why politics are sometimes toxic, this is a great example. Here is an opportunity for members of Parliament to debate the issue, to let it go to committee, and probably have an opportunity to be collegial with the amendments in clause-by-clause. He has now forced the committee to examine every amendment, and every clause to the very finite end.

Therefore, between the minister and the House leader, could they explain why they would want to sour the positive relationship on the transport committee? For good measure, he should apologize to the chair, because she has done a great job, and now he is putting her in a heck of a situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague brought up the fact, as I did beforehand, that Bill C-49 passed yesterday through clause-by-clause. It is certainly my hope that Bill C-48 will go through a similar collegial process. There will be that opportunity.

I totally respect the independence of the committee as our government has done from the very beginning, unlike the previous government. I am sure when it does arrive at committee, there will be a similar opportunity to hear witnesses to argue for and against, and eventually go to clause-by-clause. I hope to do all this in a collegial manner.

Joyce MurrayLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.

I am pleased and proud to be part of today's debate on Bill C-48, and to discuss implementing an oil tanker moratorium on British Columbia's northern coast.

It is important to remember that with the bill, the Government of Canada is honouring its promise to Canadians. By formalizing this moratorium and including marine safety, the government is delivering on its promise, as set out in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Transport.

I want to thank our Prime Minister for his commitment to the oil tanker moratorium on the Pacific north coast. I also want to thank the Minister of Transport for taking his thoughtful approach in consulting widely on the bill and delivering on this commitment.

This is one of those times when it is very satisfying to be a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I worked on this issue as a core project in Vancouver Quadra from early 2009. Therefore, I want to also acknowledge all the constituents of Vancouver Quadra, the environmental groups, the communities, and the indigenous communities on British Columbia's coast that paid attention to the potential risks to our coast and supported the idea of banning crude oil tanker traffic, consistent with a policy moratorium that had been put in place in 1972 by a previous Prime Minister Trudeau.

Therefore, I would like to share with the members a press release I wrote in February 2011, after two years of work on this. It said:

Yesterday, Vancouver Quadra Liberal MP... announced that C-606, her private Members’ bill to ban oil tanker traffic off B.C.’s north coast, has been officially submitted to proceed to debate next month. “We are now one step closer to a legislated oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast--the only way to protect our oceans and communities from a catastrophic oil spill... If disaster were to strike in our northern coastal waters, B.C.--and Canada as a whole – would never be the same.

Bill C-606 legislates a crude oil tanker ban in the dangerous inland waters around Haida Gwaii known as Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. The bill would not affect current deliveries of diesel and other oil products to local communities

The work to protect that area of the coast has been going on for a long time. The press release continued:

We’ve witnessed the Gulf of Mexico and Exxon-Valdez oil spills. It’s just not worth the risk...In perfect conditions, industry considers 15 percent recovery of oil a success, but a recent report by Canada’s Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner raised serious doubts about the Conservative government’s ability to even respond to a spill.

This initiative is widely supported by British Columbians in all parts of the province. In fact, a press release I issued in March 2011 talks about a two-day campaign being kicked off to meet with Vancouver Island residents and stakeholders about Bill C-606, the bill to legislate a ban on crude oil tankers in B.C.'s dangerous northern waterways. It says that I would also be consulting with the northern communities, the community of Kitimat, where a terminal for an oil pipeline that would be transported through those waters for which it was planned, and that I would visit first nations, community organizations, local businesses, unions, and municipalities to reach out to those communities. Those early consultations made it very clear that “An oil spill would hurt our communities, our environment, our businesses, and our way of life. This is not a risk British Columbians can afford to take”, quoting from that press release.

I am talking about this because I want to acknowledge and thank some of the key environmental organizations that brought this issue forward to the Liberal caucus of the day. The four environmental organizations that were critical to this work, doing the research and encouraging us to move forward on this issue, were Dogwood Initiative, Living Oceans Society, Stand.earth, and West Coast Environmental Law.

This was a real priority. Why was it so important and why is it so important for a government that is committed to protecting the environment, a particularly sensitive environment in this case, while also protecting and developing a strong economy? It is because B.C.'s coastal economy in 2010 was estimated to have 56,000 jobs tied to clean coastal environments, jobs in fisheries, tourism, ecotourism, and recreation, film and television among them. It also was about a way of life for our coastal communities.

Imagine being in Hartley Bay, a remote coastal community, as I had the privilege to be, knowing that community's supermarket really is its freezers. The fishermen go and harvest the shellfish, the abalone, the mussels and clams, the salmon, and the halibut, and the residents eat that seafood throughout the year, as they have for a millennia. It is about a way of life, as well as an economy and an environment.

I came naturally to thinking about how we could protect our coastal environment from a devastating oil spill. I was a tree planter and reforestation contractor working on the north coast in my late teens and early 20s, and I came to know it well.

I also had the chance to travel up and down the coast as a minister of environment. Imagine being at the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Bear Sanctuary, this amazing and rich estuary, watching the grizzly bears feed with their families, as I had a chance to do. Imagine that being fouled with a crude oil spill, as happened in Alaska's estuaries with the Exxon Valdez oil spill? We could never go back.

Therefore, I and so many British Columbians were committed to ensuring that these dangerous waters would not be the location of a devastating oil spill. We are reminded by the Deepwater Horizon, the Exxon Valdez, and some of the other spills off our coast that human error and equipment failure are something one can never guarantee will not happen.

B.C.'s north coast is home to the Great Bear Rainforest and some of the world's most diverse ecosystems, including 27 species of marine mammals, 120 species of marine birds, and 2,500 individual salmon runs.

One of the big concerns after the Exxon Valdez example was the jobs that would be lost as well as the impact on the environment. I met with a woman who came to one of my meetings wearing the gumboots she wore when she went to clean up the Exxon Valdez spill up in Alaska.

I am so proud of our government and our minister for having done significant consultations throughout the province and for having discussed this with groups from the coast right through the interior.

I want to again thank my constituents for supporting me on this. I would like to thank our minister and our Prime Minister for delivering on this promise to British Columbia and to Canada to protect this very special part of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to ask members to imagine a few things. Imagine members of one of the 31 first nations or Métis communities in the Aboriginal Equity Partners agreement, who stood to gain $2 billion from the northern gateway pipeline. Imagine their being told by the Prime Minister that there was no relationship more important than our relationship with Canada's indigenous people, then imagine their being completely ignored and having no consultation done with them while $2 billion was torn away from them, their communities, their children, and future generations that would stand to benefit from responsible resource development.

Is the member proud of the fact, which has been confirmed in Order Paper questions, that the Government of Canada was not required to undertake consultations with those indigenous groups? Because they wanted economic development, because they wanted natural resource development, because they wanted this pipeline that would bring prosperity to their people to go ahead, they were deemed unworthy of consultation. Is she proud of that fact?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that our government does extensive consultation on every initiative and every bill we put forward, unlike the previous Conservative government, which would cook up changes to bills in back rooms for political purposes, like with the Fisheries Act, and lay them out in a huge omnibus bill and never even talk to anyone about them.

Coastal first nations up and down British Columbia supported this moratorium. Coastal first nations all through the area of over 700 rivers, creeks, and streams that lead to salmon-bearing rivers were for a moratorium on the coast. I am proud that we listened to them. We consulted, and we listened.

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. I agree with her that this moratorium is a good idea. However, all the facts she is reading out actually apply to the south coast as well. If we have a bitumen spill in the waters right off her riding, there will be devastation to all kinds of recreational areas and areas that are worked by local first nations.

How does the member square the circle? How can she and all her colleagues from British Columbia stand with the Prime Minister while he approves the Kinder Morgan pipeline, while there are 19 court cases now pending, many from first nations that do not want this, while tens of thousands of British Columbians say that they do not want the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and while the British Columbia government says that it will use every tool in the tool box to stop this pipeline? How can she square the circle?

How can she say the facts in her speech about this northern gateway pipeline, agree with the moratorium, and then turn around, with her B.C. colleagues, and support the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague across the way will support this bill, as all the NDP members agreed to support my bill, Bill C-606, because of the importance of protecting coastal rainforest that is untouched. A pipeline would have had to go through the Coast Mountains, days' worth of wilderness, which have no roads and no human activities.

This particular bill would protect an area that is remote and that the Coast Guard probably could not even get to, even with the additional resources and funds our government is putting into the Coast Guard. There is no capacity to deal with an oil spill in these remote waters. I am very proud that we will not be facing that horrible possibility on our Pacific north coast, and I hope the member will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to support Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act. The environment is very important to the residents of the riding of Davenport, so I stand to support this bill.

For anyone who does not get a chance to watch this live, I want to review very quickly what the oil tanker moratorium act would do. The act would formalize a moratorium for oil tankers off British Columbia's north coast. It would do three things. It would cover an area from the northern Alaska-B.C. border down to the point on B.C.'s mainland adjacent to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. That includes Haida Gwaii. Tanker traffic would not be allowed to go in and out of the ports in the northern part of B.C. This would apply to all ships carrying over 12,500 tonnes of crude oil or persistent oil as cargo in this area. As well, the tanker moratorium would complement the existing voluntary tanker exclusion zone, which has been in place since 1985.

If we have a voluntary moratorium, what would this tanker moratorium actually do? The act would expand the current area to include areas such as the Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance, and Queen Charlotte Sound, off the coast of Haida Gwaii. Also, the voluntary moratorium only dealt with ships that were actually passing through the area. The bill proposes to include all the traffic that goes through the area. We are very pleased with the two changes this bill would put in place.

This is a pristine part of northern British Columbia that from time immemorial we have wanted to protect. First nation groups and community groups along the coastline have been asking governments for many years to protect it. We made the promise years ago that we would do so, and I am very pleased that today we are moving forward by pursuing this bill.

The other thing I want to mention is that the tanker moratorium act would complement the $1.5 billion comprehensive national oceans protection plan. That plan has four priority areas.

First, the Government of Canada will create a world-leading marine safety system that improves responsible shipping and protects Canada's waters. When we talk about world-leading, we mean that the system will meet or exceed the best practices in the world. This area focuses both on prevention and response measures.

Second, the government will focus on the preservation and restoration of marine ecosystems and habitats. This will be done using new tools and research as well as measures to address abandoned and derelict vessels and wrecks.

Third is building and strengthening partnerships with indigenous and coastal communities. The government is helping to build local capacity so that indigenous groups play a meaningful role in emergency response and waterway management.

The fourth part of our oceans protection plan is that the government will ensure that Canada's marine safety system is built on a stronger evidence base, supported by science and local knowledge. I am delighted that this is going into place.

I started off by saying that the environment is very important to Davenport residents. I have always told them that one of the key things we promised as we formed government was that as we looked forward to developing our economy, we wanted to do it in a sustainable way. The oceans protection plan and the oil tanker moratorium act are both part of that plan.

I will now move to my more formal remarks.

In an earlier session, there were some questions about government consultations. Indeed, there has been extensive government consultation. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the member for Vancouver Quadra, who has done such a wonderful job for years advocating for this. I know that there were a lot of consultations at that time, and I am very proud that we continue to engage in additional consultations. We made sure that we reached out to as many groups as possible. We listened and incorporated their views into the bill before us today.

I am very pleased and proud to take part in today's discussion about implementing an oil tanker moratorium on British Columbia's northern coast. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the efforts made by the government and its partners to reach the decision to implement this moratorium. It is important to remember that with this bill, the Government of Canada would be honouring its commitments to Canadians. Formalizing this moratorium and improving marine safety were among the priorities set out in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Transport.

We believe it is essential to protect the environment, a particularly sensitive environment in the case of northern B.C., while also developing a strong economy. It is just as important to note that the decision to impose this moratorium was the outcome of a vast consultation process.

Our government is committed to pursuing its objectives in the spirit of renewed collaboration. We firmly believe it is essential to maintain and enhance our relationships with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments and with indigenous groups to bring about concrete, positive change. Therefore, we undertook these consultations when the government first announced its intention to adopt a legislative framework to formalize the moratorium.

The first meetings were held in British Columbia, where the minister brought together representatives from first nations, industry, local communities, and non-governmental organizations dedicated to environmental protection.

Discussions were held across the country, including in Iqaluit, St. John's, Montreal, and Calgary, to name only a few locations. It was important for us to bring together Canadians with differing opinions on the moratorium. The government took great care to include various stakeholders from different settings, namely, the marine community, the oil and gas industry, environmental groups, provincial and municipal governments, Canadians from across the country, and of course, first nations.

In total, Transport Canada organized 16 round tables and over 30 bilateral and multilateral meetings to involve Canadians in improving marine safety, which included discussions about the moratorium on oil tankers. With the aim of extending the discussion further and enabling those who were unable to attend those meetings, Transport Canada set up a web portal. Indeed, many letters from Canadians were also forwarded to the department. Overall, nearly 5,000 users visited the online portal. Of them, 330 provided comments or submitted documents. Most of those comments were about the moratorium that is the subject here today.

It is obvious that Canadians wanted to be heard. I can assure members that this was done. We not only listened closely to the concerns of our partners and Canadians about the matter, we took steps to meet their expectations. For example, a number of stakeholders expressed concerns about the moratorium's potential impact on transporting supplies for the communities and industries on British Columbia's coast. Resupply is vital to their welfare. The communities and industries must be able to continue to receive shipments of petroleum products. Therefore, the government ensured that the proposed legislation would allow resupply to continue by setting a threshold of 12,500 metric tonnes of crude oil and persistent oil in a tanker's cargo spaces. The resupply of communities and industries would therefore not be affected by the proposed moratorium.

Some stakeholders pointed out to us that they also wanted to ensure that the moratorium was transformed into action by an act of Parliament. That is exactly what the bill is proposing.

During the Canada-wide discussions, concerns were raised about marine safety. The stakeholders found that the Canadian Coast Guard lacked resources, including salvage tugs. Stakeholders also raised concerns about the time required to respond to an incident. The oceans protection plan will allay their concerns by giving the Canadian Coast Guard a greater role when it comes to patrols and monitoring the marine environment. The Coast Guard is also going to have increased towing capacity.

A number of stakeholders also noted that there could be more involvement from local communities in emergency responses. For that reason, the government is making plans to better coordinate the federal emergency response plan. With greater resource capacity from coast to coast to coast, the government is ready to work with local communities and indigenous groups. New indigenous community response teams will also be established, with training in search and rescue, environmental response, and incident command.

Remember that Canada is a maritime nation that was built on a safe, secure maritime transport system. This government is dedicated to developing a long-term agenda for marine transport that demonstrates that a healthy environment and a sustainable economy go hand in hand.

In short, the moratorium on oil tankers would be a major initiative for protecting the B.C. coast. I encourage all members to come together and support this bill that would protect our environment.

Madam Speaker, these pipeline projects are of critical importance to my constituency. They contribute jobs and opportunities in western Canada and, frankly, all of Canada. For example, there is a pallet factory outside Toronto. Generally speaking, everything that moves in the oil sands moves on a pallet. We are all interconnected, so when the government brings forward legislation that shuts down jobs and opportunities, it will affect not just my riding but also jobs and opportunities in that member's riding.

Why is the government moving forward with legislation that would shut down opportunities for Canada in the energy exporting market that would have created jobs and opportunities here, while opening the market to oil from countries that do not share our values and human rights record? In its entirety, it will gratuitously disadvantage Canadians and our economy.

Why is the government moving in this direction? Why does it not put jobs and opportunity ahead of its anti-energy ideology?

Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are putting jobs and our economy at the forefront of our priorities. As we have said time and time again, we will move forward in developing and growing our economy in a sustainable way.

We have already approved three pipelines that will create thousands of jobs, mostly in Alberta. A lot of our natural resources will be brought to tidewater.

We do have an obligation to develop our resources, but in sustainable way, and that is what we are committed to doing.

Madam Speaker, the member and the member before her talked about sensitive ecosystems and important marine coastal jobs. She also talked about protecting the environment.

The member for Vancouver Quadra pointed out that there is no world-class oil response program in place for the central B.C. coast. Here I would like to tell both members that one is not in place on the west coast of Vancouver Island either.

The Liberal government says that its stakeholders support this ban. Those same stakeholders opposed the Kinder Morgan pipeline, yet the government went ahead and rammed it through. The Liberals support a project right now that has no world-class response program in place, and the stakeholders who support this ban opposed the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

The member talked about jobs and ocean protection. Along coastal British Columbia, 100,000 jobs are being threatened by an oil spill, 10,000 in my riding alone.

The government talks about its oceans protection plan, but we know what it looks like on the ground: no jobs in marine training for indigenous people, no marine debris cleanups, and closed marine traffic control centres.

Will the Liberals stop talking out of both sides of their mouths and tell us why they supported a Kinder Morgan pipeline with the same principles this legislation would institute on the north coast of British Columbia?

Madam Speaker, when the gulf oil spill happened, it was a bit of a trauma for me. I did not like it happening over such a long period of time and that it took so long to stop the damage. I was concerned about how we would be able to approve some of our pipelines.

Our oceans protection plan is a huge part of our commitment to ensuring that we have world-leading means to protect Canada's waters and prevention and response measures in place. We are best in class in terms of that. That is top of mind for all of us.

We are trying to find a balance between moving forward and growing our economy in a sustainable way. We are engaging with all stakeholders and trying to make the most responsible decisions possible moving forward.

Madam Speaker, for some time now, from well before the by-election in April that brought me to this place, I have watched with a mix of resentment and regret as the Liberal government engages in what I have come to call “proxy politics” on the issue of pipelines. I say “resentment”, because for many in my province of Alberta and even closer to home in my riding of Calgary Heritage, pipelines are too important an issue to play political games on. I say “regret”, because what the government views as political manoeuvring only is having real and negative effects on the ground in Alberta, jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of people whose employment relies on the health of the energy sector.

As I speak today on Bill C-48, I see in its provisions not just the express purpose of its title to ban oil tankers, but also another example of the proxy politics that the government has been playing when it comes to pipeline development in Canada. What does proxy pipeline politics entail? It simply refers to the government's penchant for attaining indirectly, through legislation and politicized bureaucrats and signalling to special interests, what it cannot attain directly because of the political optics involved. This bill is another step by the government toward a goal that it pursues, but does not publicly name, the phasing out of the oil sands.

Bill C-48 would prohibit oil tankers carrying crude and persistent oils as cargo from stopping, loading, and unloading at ports or marine installations in the moratorium area. On the surface, it purports to enhance environmental protection by banning oil tankers from the north coast of British Columbia. However, that is just a greenwashing of the bill's true intent: to convert a vast region of Canada's west coast into a no-go zone for tankers under the pretext of environmental protection. Reading and listening to the Liberals' messaging around this bill, one might assume that an environmental apocalypse was imminent in B.C. That, of course, is not the case at all.

In fact, the Conservative government enhanced protections for the environment in 2014 by creating a world-class tanker safety system. We modernized Canada's navigational systems, enhanced area response planning, expanded the marine safety capacity of aboriginal communities, and ensured that polluters would pay for spills and damages. We did these things because, in contrast to the party opposite, Conservatives understand that the environment can be protected while also growing the economy.

Conservatives believe in fair and balanced policy-making. Liberals, however, would have us believe there is no middle ground. They would have Canadians forget that a voluntary exclusion zone of 100 kilometres for oil tankers travelling from Alaska to Washington State has been in place since 1985. They would also have us ignore how the Alaskan panhandle juts deep into the moratorium zone, meaning that any U.S. community sharing B.C.'s coastline can welcome oil tankers. The Liberals say never mind to the realities on the ground and to the protections already in place. Instead, they craft policies to address hypothetical contingencies that have become even less likely in recent years. Where is the fairness and balance in such an approach?

The bill's inherent unfairness is clear. It is unfair to coastal communities in northern British Columbia, excluding them from even the possibility of oil pipeline projects as a means of economic development and local job creation. This bill is unfair to those aboriginal communities in B.C. that support and seek responsible pipeline development to the west coast as a means to achieving economic independence for their communities. There are many more of those communities than the Liberals care to admit. In fact, according to the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, 500 of the 630 first nations across Canada are open to pipeline and petroleum development on their lands.

The bill is also unfair to the energy companies that take all the risks and make all the investments and do all the work that we require of them to meet our world-class safety regulations, only to discover at the end of the process that it all means nothing when a political, unbalanced, unfair outcome results.

This bill is not balanced. It favours environmental interests and their activists while marginalizing economic stakeholders. The Liberals do this not only in the interests of the environment but also because they are opposed to pipelines, and legislation such as Bill C-48 helps them to achieve their ends.

In November of last year, the federal government directed the National Energy Board to dismiss the northern gateway pipeline project. It cited concerns about oil tankers transporting some of the half-million barrels per day of a petroleum product at Kitimat, oil that would have found new international markets via tidewater. How convenient it is that we now have legislation before us that effectively bars any similar projects in the future. After all, if tankers cannot receive what pipelines send them, there is little reason for a pipeline.

For the government to engage in such reckless spending to fulfill its all-encompassing view of the role of the state shows little understanding of what is needed to fund such largesse. Governments do not create wealth; they only tax the wealth created by others to finance their objectives. Therefore, it strikes me as odd that the Liberal government consistently seeks to smother one of Canada's largest sources of wealth. Alberta's oil sands alone represent a potential $2-trillion boost to Canada's gross domestic product over the coming decade. That would help to fund health care and other social programs and priorities for many years to come. Rather than champion responsible development of a resource beneficial to everyone, the government continues to throw up hurdles.

We have seen the same with the energy east pipeline. The Liberals continue to allow interference during the approval process by bureaucrats who seem intent on moving the goalposts on investors. Allowing the regulator in that case to step outside its mandate to consider upstream impacts of the pipeline sends a signal to opponents of oil and gas development that the process is politically driven and can be disrupted. It does by proxy what the Liberals cannot do publicly for political reasons.

However, there is a cost to such interference. We cannot ask companies to make massive initial investments in the energy sector, to responsibly follow all of the regulations set before them to safely develop such projects, only to have politics change the rules in the middle of the process.

Canada stands in jeopardy of losing future oil and gas sector investments if the Liberal government continues to allow this. We cannot afford to do that, especially considering the debt into which the government is sinking us and the staggering number of public dollars that will be needed to pay it back.

Demand for Canadian oil is strongest in the rapidly growing markets of the Asia-Pacific region. However, the government's response is to ban Canada's gateway to such large markets from transporting our oil. This is not going over well with everyone, by the way.

The Chief's Council Eagle Spirit Energy project, a first nations-led energy corridor proposal that has the support of its affected communities, has claimed there has been insufficient consultation on the ban and says it “does not have our consent.”

Mr. Speaker, the 400 kilometre stretch of coastal temperate rainforest running along British Columbia's northern coast is one of nature's truly spectacular sites. It is beloved by all Canadians and global visitors who share their determination to preserve and protect this land from potential oil spills. I am here today to speak to the proposed legislation designed to do just that. It is my pleasure to outline the rationale for, and benefits of, Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act. In addition, the proposed act fulfills our government's pledge to formalize an oil tanker moratorium on B